SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ethnic " 68 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Almost iconic? Political violence and the making of symbolic figures in Brazil’s 2018 elections by Katherine Jensen
Ethnic and Racial Studies ABSTRACT Confederate memorialization is not limited to the United States. After the Civil War, thousands of former Confederates emigrated to Brazil where slavery continued. Santa Bárbara d’Oeste and Americana, in São Paulo State, long celebrated this Confederate heritage. Local memory politics, however, have become unsettled. This article examines local Black movement …
Burnham urged to launch inquiry into unequal health impacts of air pollution
Letter from 150 scientists, MPs and activists calls for action to protect lower-income and minority-ethnic communities
A CDC survey finds 4 in 5 US teenagers fall short of high heart health scores
A CDC study of 5,192 US high school students found that approximately 80% had low or moderate cardiovascular health scores based on five measures assessed in a national survey. Diet, sleep, and physical activity received the least favorable scores, with differences observed across sex, grade, and racial and ethnic groups.
HHS’s Elimination of Disparate Impact to Determine Discrimination: Potential Implications for Health and Health Care
This brief provides background on Title VI, summarizes the key changes in the 2026 final rule, and discusses the potential implications for racial and ethnic health disparities.
How these census changes could threaten public health
The Trump administration wants to make three big changes to the U.S. Census, including eliminating questions about race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation and excluding anyone who is not a citizen or “lawful permanent resident."
California to recognize Jewish as ethnicity on state forms
The choice of Jewish as an ethnicity will begin appearing on state forms in 2029.
Polls close in Bosnia in race where pro-Russia politician looms large and ethnic tensions simmer
Polls have closed evening in Bosnia after an election shaped by economic pressures, a youth exodus and concerns over corruption. Some leading politicians stoked ethnic tensions that have divided the
Bosnia votes as pro-Russian politician looms large and ethnic tensions simmer
Around 3.4 million voters are choosing the three members of the country's multi-ethnic presidency, lawmakers for the national Parliament and heads of institutions for the country's two entities.
Bosnia votes as pro-Russian politician looms large and ethnic tensions simmer
Bosnia is holding a general election with citizens of all ethnicities focused on everyday problems. But mainstream politicians are whipping up war-era tensions that have kept the country divided since
Bosnia votes as pro-Russian politician looms large over the race and ethnic tensions simmer
Bosnia is holding a general election with citizens of all ethnicities focused on everyday problems
Bosnia votes as pro-Russian politician looms large over the race and ethnic tensions simmer
Bosnia is holding a general election with citizens of all ethnicities focused on everyday problems | WWJ Newsradio 950
Rutgers Experts Available to Discuss Implications of Proposed 2030 Census Changes for Research and Public Health
A proposed Census Bureau rule could change the demographic information collected through the 2030 Census — eliminating questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation — with potential implications for population health research and the use of Census data. The Census Bureau has invited the public to comment on this proposal by October 13, 2026. Rutgers experts available to discuss the proposed changes include Cristine Delnevo, Director of the Rutgers Institute for Nicotine and
Bosnia elections overshadowed by exodus and geopolitics as ethnic politics eclipse real problems
Bosnia goes to the polls on October 4 to elect several parliaments and presidents. While voters worry about the economy and emigration, the campaign is focused on ethnicity, exposing the country's political paralysis.
When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?
“I’m just going to run to the grocery store!” How many times have we said this without thinking about it? For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot. In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas. This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option. In the 1930s, federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods. Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store. This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease. When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district. Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk. Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood. Then, in August 2026, the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “subjective” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered. Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease. Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them. If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical. The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000. But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive. DEI vs. health equity vs. equality and the overlap (or lack thereof) The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race. For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white. Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized. Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair. Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity. Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.” It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others. For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer. Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities. Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else. For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal. But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much. Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place. DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways. For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities. But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them. What we lose when the research stops Community data is important to health equity because: You can’t fix what you don’t see: Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer. If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help. Poor health costs everyone: Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy. Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money. Disparities exist for many communities: Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income. This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them. Trust is easy to lose: Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating. But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community. When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help. This hurts trust in the long run. It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again. How should we talk about health equity? This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged. So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters. The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding. Here are some suggestions to help your conversations: Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message? Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”? If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across. It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads. Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it. Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract. Make it more specific. For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities. These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with. Focus on systems: Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault. Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism. When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted. Tell stories: Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey. This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful. Bottom line Some communities end up sicker than others. That’s just the facts. We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier. It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind. And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country. Love, EM Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Proposed Changes to Demographic Data Collection in the Census Could Impact Efforts to Address Health and Health Care Disparities
This issue brief provides an overview of the decennial census and discusses potential implications of the changes outlined in a September 2026 proposed rule to prohibit the collection of race and ethnicity data on the census and exclude many noncitizen immigrants from the apportionment count.
Culturally Relevant Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Care Strategies
(Feature Impact) Driven by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors, cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the United States. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-top-asset'); }); Hispanic people represent nearly 1 in 5 of the U.S. population and are the nation’s largest ethnic minority group, yet many continue to face barriers to achieving heart health and accessing high-quality healthcare. A new scientific statement published in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal, “Circulation,” revealed how social, economic, cultural and environmental factors contribute to persistent disparities in cardiovascular health, calling for culturally tailored prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research.“Hispanic populations in the U.S. are incredibly diverse even within their own communities with differences in genetic ancestry, language, cultural traditions and social experiences that can significantly influence cardiovascular health,” said Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, director of the Division of Heart Failure and medical director of the Hispanic Heart Center within the Mount Sinai Health System. “Yet Hispanic people remain underrepresented overall in the research that guides prevention and treatment strategies… Without better representation and more detailed data, we risk overlooking important differences that can help us improve care and save lives.”Hispanic Cardiovascular Health by the NumbersCardiovascular risk factors – obesity (nearly 46%), type 2 diabetes (15.5%) and high blood pressure (approximately 44%) – are prevalent among Hispanic adults and often emerge at younger ages and occur more frequently among Hispanic adults compared with white adults.According to the report, only about 1 in 5 Hispanic adults achieves ideal cardiovascular health as defined by the American Heart Association’s original Life’s Simple 7 metrics. Updated analyses using the Life’s Essential 8 framework demonstrated persistent disparities for heart and brain health, as well as suboptimal dietary quality, sleep patterns and levels of physical activity.Social and Economic Barriers MatterBiology alone does not explain cardiovascular health disparities. The environments where people live, work and age, along with social and economic challenges, impact heart health. In fact, approximately 17% of Hispanics live below the federal poverty threshold, compared with 8.2% of white adults. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-middle-asset'); }); “Many Hispanic adults face obstacles that extend far beyond the doctor’s office,” Contreras said. “Limited health insurance coverage, language differences, food insecurity, environmental exposures and concerns related to immigration status can make it more difficult to prevent disease, manage chronic conditions and receive timely treatment.”Contreras emphasized the cultural values and practices of Hispanic people also influence how they perceive their health and healthcare options.“Family plays a central role in many Hispanic communities and can be an extraordinary source of strength, support and resilience,” Contreras said. “At the same time, family members are often called upon to translate medical information, navigate health systems and help make healthcare decisions for loved ones. Those responsibilities can shape how health information is understood and acted upon.”An Action Plan for Improving Hispanic HealthThere are practical opportunities to achieve equitable cardiovascular health and reduce disparities through community engagement, culturally responsive care, inclusive research and policies that address the underlying drivers of health.“Reducing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic populations demands action at every level,” Contreras said, “from improving access to culturally responsive care and expanding research participation to addressing the social and environmental conditions that shape health.”By addressing both medical risk factors and the social conditions that shape health, experts believe there is an important opportunity to reduce disparities and help more people live longer, healthier lives. Learn more at Heart.org.Photo courtesy of Shutterstock googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-bottom-asset'); });
Culturally Relevant Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Care Strategies
(Feature Impact) Driven by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors, cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the United States.Hispanic people represent nearly 1 in 5 of the U.S. population and are the nation’s largest ethnic minority group, yet many continue to face barriers to achieving heart health and accessing high-quality healthcare. A new scientific statement published in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal, “Circulation,” revealed how social, economic, cultural and environmental factors contribute to persistent disparities in cardiovascular health, calling for culturally tailored prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research.“Hispanic populations in the U.S. are incredibly diverse even within their own communities with differences in genetic ancestry, language, cultural traditions and social experiences that can significantly influence cardiovascular health,” said Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, director of the Division of Heart Failure and medical director of the Hispanic Heart Center within the Mount Sinai Health System. “Yet Hispanic people remain underrepresented overall in the research that guides prevention and treatment strategies… Without better representation and more detailed data, we risk overlooking important differences that can help us improve care and save lives.”Hispanic Cardiovascular Health by the NumbersCardiovascular risk factors – obesity (nearly 46%), type 2 diabetes (15.5%) and high blood pressure (approximately 44%) – are prevalent among Hispanic adults and often emerge at younger ages and occur more frequently among Hispanic adults compared with white adults.According to the report, only about 1 in 5 Hispanic adults achieves ideal cardiovascular health as defined by the American Heart Association’s original Life’s Simple 7 metrics. Updated analyses using the Life’s Essential 8 framework demonstrated persistent disparities for heart and brain health, as well as suboptimal dietary quality, sleep patterns and levels of physical activity.Social and Economic Barriers MatterBiology alone does not explain cardiovascular health disparities. The environments where people live, work and age, along with social and economic challenges, impact heart health. In fact, approximately 17% of Hispanics live below the federal poverty threshold, compared with 8.2% of white adults.#placement_976606_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid976606 = window.pid976606 || rnd;var plc976606 = window.plc976606 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=976606;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid976606+';place='+(plc976606++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');“Many Hispanic adults face obstacles that extend far beyond the doctor’s office,” Contreras said. “Limited health insurance coverage, language differences, food insecurity, environmental exposures and concerns related to immigration status can make it more difficult to prevent disease, manage chronic conditions and receive timely treatment.”Contreras emphasized the cultural values and practices of Hispanic people also influence how they perceive their health and healthcare options.“Family plays a central role in many Hispanic communities and can be an extraordinary source of strength, support and resilience,” Contreras said. “At the same time, family members are often called upon to translate medical information, navigate health systems and help make healthcare decisions for loved ones. Those responsibilities can shape how health information is understood and acted upon.”An Action Plan for Improving Hispanic HealthThere are practical opportunities to achieve equitable cardiovascular health and reduce disparities through community engagement, culturally responsive care, inclusive research and policies that address the underlying drivers of health.“Reducing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic populations demands action at every level,” Contreras said, “from improving access to culturally responsive care and expanding research participation to addressing the social and environmental conditions that shape health.”By addressing both medical risk factors and the social conditions that shape health, experts believe there is an important opportunity to reduce disparities and help more people live longer, healthier lives. Learn more at Heart.org.Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Scottdale lines up entertainment, activities for annual fall festival
Scottdale will host its 52nd annual fall festival Friday through Sunday. The three-day celebration will feature a variety of handmade crafts, local and ethnic foods, a parade, live entertainment and a children’s area. It is held at the gazebo on the corner of Pittsburgh and Spring streets. Festival hours are
Trump administration seeks to remove race, ethnicity questions from census
The public has less than 30 days to comment on two major proposed changes
Trump administration seeks to remove race, ethnicity questions from census
The public has less than 30 days to comment on two major proposed changes
Rise in abuse of election candidates is ‘changing politics’ in England
Electoral Commission finds abuse, particularly of women, minority ethnic and disabled people, is affecting candidates’ behaviour
The Silent Crisis: Suicide Among Native Americans Reflects Global Mental Health Emergency
Overview: World Suicide Prevention Day, observed annually on September 10, highlights the global toll of suicide while drawing attention to the disproportionately high rates experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native people. AI/AN communities face the highest suicide rates of any racial or ethnic group in the United States, with particularly alarming rates among males, […]
Trump administration proposes dropping huge swath of immigrants from U.S. census
The proposal would block immigrants in the country legally from being counted in the 2030 census and would drop some questions about race and ethnicity.
The Public Health Cost of Eliminating Race and Ethnicity Data
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Brooke Burke questions if ‘age’ or ‘ethnicity’ played role in her ‘DWTS’ firing
Brooke Burke questioned if ‘age’ or ‘ethnicity’ had a role in her ‘Dancing With the Stars’ firing, years after she left ‘DWTS’ as a cohost from seasons 10-17.
Eating more ultra-processed foods may raise prostate cancer risk by 30%
Ultra-processed foods make up a huge share of the American diet, and new research suggests they may carry another serious health risk for men. In a nationally representative study of more than 17,000 U.S. men, those who ate more ultra-processed foods, including soft drinks, packaged snacks, cereals, and processed meats, had roughly 24% to 31% higher risks of prostate cancer after accounting for factors such as age, smoking, race and ethnicity, and poverty status.
Historic redlining continues limiting healthy food access, study finds
Bad housing, high crime and poor schools are more important than transportation or income when it comes to accessing healthy food in neighborhoods historically subjected to "redlining" - the now-illegal practice once used to refuse loans, insurance or mortgages to people in certain neighborhoods that were disproportionately inhabited by racial and ethnicity minorities.
The Business of Katseye
As the world’s first multi-ethnic, English-language group modeled on the K-pop framework, Katseye has broken significant industry barriers. Their continued high-profile activities indicate their ability to adapt despite recent controversy. But can their influence be sustained?
Americans’ use of social media for health information differs by race and ethnicity
Hispanic, Black, and Asian adults are more likely than White adults to get health information from social media and turn to health and wellness influencers.
Shatema Threadcraft Receives the 2026 Ralph J. Bunche Award for "The Labors of Resurrection: Black Women, Necromancy, and Morrisonian Democracy" -
The Ralph J. Bunche Award is presented annually by the American Political Science Association (APSA) to honor the best scholarly work in political science that explores the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural pluralism. Citation from the Award [...]
Midterm voting preferences by race and ethnicity, age, and other demographics
This is part of a larger report on Americans and the 2026 midterm elections. Several months ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Democrats hold a 6 percentage point edge over Republicans among registered voters on the generic ballot for Congress (43% vs. 37%). Two-in-ten voters say they are not sure (14%) or support another candidate […]
Padilla Leads Tri-Caucus in Introducing Sweeping Health Equity Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), along with Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Representatives Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.-02), and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.-06) announced the reintroduction of the Health Equity and Accountability Act (HEAA) of 2026, bicameral legislation that would address health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities as well […]
Ranking Member Markey, Senator Hirono Reject Trump’s SBA Policy Proposal that Harms Underserved Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs
Letter (PDF) (Washington, July 17) – Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) submitted a comment letter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) opposing a proposed rule change by Trump’s SBA to the 8(a) Business Development Program that would harm underserved small business owners and entrepreneurs. The 8(a) Business Development Program was created by Congress more than 50 years ago to level the playing field for small business owners and entrepreneurs who have faced discrimination in starting and operating their businesses. The SBA’s proposed change ignores the existence of historic discrimination that minority and underserved small businesses have faced and continue to face. In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “SBA’s proposed rule ignores present-day barriers that entrepreneurs from minority and underserved communities face. Discrimination is not dead; minority entrepreneurs continue to face reduced access to contracting opportunities and capital, as well as racial threats and targeting, including unequal treatment, refusal by others to work with minority-owned firms, being called racial slurs, and bias in the workplace. These barriers lead to wide underutilization of, and less revenue for, minority-owned businesses compared to majority-owned businesses, as supported by decades of disparity studies. The proposed rule diminishes the history of systemic racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States by claiming that remedies for discrimination create discrimination in and of themselves.” The lawmakers continued, “The program has always been open to anyone who can prove they have experienced prejudice or cultural bias in education, employment, entrepreneurship, and other facets of our society. Nonetheless SBA has moved forward with the proposed rule. It lacks a reasoned basis, purporting that the federal government has discriminated against White Americans, but offering no substantive qualitative or quantitative data or research in support. If the examples provided in the proposed rule are the only basis for what constitutes discrimination to the agency, they are woefully insufficient. The final rule must provide strong evidence that there is discrimination against White individuals and show how the rule is narrowly tailored to address it. The record remains devoid of evidence of discrimination against White individuals on the basis of race.” Ranking Member Markey is fighting to protect federal programs that address historic discrimination against small business owners from minority and underserved communities, and for a small business agenda that ensures economic opportunity for all. In June, Ranking Member Markey released a statement condemning the SBA’s proposed changes to the 8(a) Business Development Program. Also in June, Ranking Markey released a new report highlighting Trump’s drastic reduction in federal contracting dollars awarded to American small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses. In February, Ranking Member Markey, alongside Senators Hirono and Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), introduced the Strengthening Place-based Access, Resources, and Knowledge (SPARK) Act to spur entrepreneurship and increase access to capital and resources for underserved entrepreneurs nationwide. Ranking Member Markey previously held a field hearing in Roxbury, Massachusetts, to discuss how government and the private sector can come together to make entrepreneurship more accessible for underserved communities. Earlier in February, Ranking Member Markey secured funding with the Appropriations Committee for Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Centers, SCORE Chapters, and Veterans Business Outreach Centers and provisions to rein in the Administration’s attempts to eliminate programs that support women, veterans, and underserved entrepreneurs. In January, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to oppose rule changes that would gut protections against discriminatory lending practices that harm small businesses. In December 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler expressing significant concerns with the SBA’s overly burdensome request and unclear guidance for extensive financial documentation over the holidays, as a part of their sweeping attempts to dismantle the 8(a) Business Development Program. In July and December 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent letters to the SBA Administrator demanding answers about the Trump administration’s efforts to limit economic opportunity for American entrepreneurs, including immigrants. In May 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to the SBA Administrator rejecting President Trump’s FY 2026 budget proposal and calling on SBA to immediately release funding for the entrepreneurial development programs, which include programs like the Women’s Business Centers and the Veteran’s Business Development Centers that support underserved small business owners. In April 2025, Ranking Member Markey introduced the New Start Act of 2025 to establish a five-year pilot program providing grants to support entrepreneurial development training for currently or formerly incarcerated individuals. In February 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent letters to the SBA Administrator and Government Accountability Office (GAO) condemning President Trump’s war on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) policies and asking how the SBA intends to implement Trump’s anti-DEIA executive orders. ###
About a third of U.S. Democrats like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists
Democrats’ views on democratic socialists also differ by race and ethnicity, age, education, income and political engagement.
As cancer death rates plunge, clear disparities remain, new report says
Black and American Indian/Alaska Native communities have the highest cancer rates of any racial or ethnic group in the U.S.
Opinion: Grievance, Bewilderment and Ethnic Amnesia: Poland, Ukraine and the Politics of Historical Memory
An explainer from a Ukrainian perspective to warn against a black-and-white approach to historical issues that serves politicians’ purposes but divides neighbors.
Report finds deep racial and ethnic health disparities in Texas
We examine the Commonwealth Fund report's findings and what they reveal about health care access, affordability and outcomes across Texas.
SBA moves to revise 8(a) rules while preserving tribal, ANC eligibility
Details By Brian Edwards Native Contracting June 13, 2026 The U.S. Small Business Administration has proposed changes to its 8(a) Business Development Program that would eliminate race-based presumptions of social disadvantage for individually owned businesses while leaving eligibility standards unchanged for tribally owned enterprises, Alaska Native corporations and other Native entity-owned participants. In both the title and summary of the proposed rule published in the Federal Register, SBA emphasized that the changes only apply to individually owned firms and “do not impact entity-owned firms,” including tribes, Alaska Native corporation, Native Hawaiian organizations and community development corporations. The proposed rule, announced June 11, would require all individual applicants seeking admission to the 8(a) program to submit evidence demonstrating social disadvantage. Membership in a racial or ethnic group alone would no longer establish eligibility, according to the SBA. For Indian Country, the agency said eligibility standards for businesses owned by federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native corporations, Native Hawaiian organizations and community development corporations would remain unchanged. The proposal comes after the Department of Defense reaffirmed that participation by tribes and Alaska Native corporations in the 8(a) program is based on their political status under federal law rather than diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. In a May 28 letter to Alaska's Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael P. Duffey wrote that participation by federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations in federal programs is “grounded in their political status as Native Americans, not DEI initiatives.” The SBA proposal follows a 2023 federal court ruling that found unconstitutional the program's rebuttable presumption that members of certain racial and ethnic groups were socially disadvantaged. SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said the proposed rule would establish a single standard for individually owned applicants by requiring evidence of social disadvantage. The 8(a) Business Development Program provides participating firms with business development assistance and access to federal set-aside and sole-source contracting opportunities. The program remains a major source of federal contracting revenue for tribal enterprises and Alaska Native corporations. Native-owned firms received $16.1 billion of the program's approximately $26 billion in federal contract awards during fiscal 2024, according to data previously reported by Tribal Business News. The proposal also arrives amid ongoing concerns from Native contractors about SBA administration of the program. In May, the Native American Contractors Association and 53 Native-owned businesses urged SBA to address delays in processing 8(a) applications, saying some reviews had stretched beyond regulatory deadlines and appeared to have stalled since August 2025. The proposed rule is open for public comment through July 13. The Federal Register notice does not reference tribal consultation or indicate whether SBA determined consultation was unnecessary because tribal eligibility standards are unchanged. The SBA has not announced when the proposed rule would take effect. The agency is expected to accept public comments before issuing a final rule.About The AuthorAuthor: Brian EdwardsBrian Edwards is associate publisher and associate editor of Tribal Business News and Native News Online. He is a longtime publisher, editor, business reporter and serial entrepreneur. Subscribe Today!Other Articles by this authorDefense Department reaffirms tribal, ANC eligibility in SBA 8(a) programTribal heritage projects eligible for up to $100K in federal funding through NPS programIHS launches tribal long-term care construction initiative with three projectsIḷisaġvik College acquires site for long-planned Utqiaġvik campus This article is available to paid digital subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
The political typology illustrates gaps in political values by age, race and ethnicity
The prevalence of Pew Research Center’s nine political typology groups varies considerably by age and across racial and ethnic groups. This variation mirrors these demographic divides in American politics today – both overall and in each of the partisan coalitions. This analysis is part of Pew Research Center’s 2026 Political Typology. To learn more about […]
Leftward Progressives
As their name suggests, Leftward Progressives hold progressive views across nearly every issue area. Deeply supportive of expanding government services and the social safety net, they overwhelmingly support legal abortion and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. This majority White group is deeply concerned about racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. society. Leftward […]
E-bike safety; lung cancer treatment and prevention; keeping CMA Festival attendees safe; plus other stories with Vanderbilt Health sources
WKRN News 2 interviewed Jeffrey Upperman, MD, FACS, Professor and Chair of the Department of Pediatric Surgery and Surgeon-in-Chief of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, about e-bike related injuries following the recent death of a Brentwood High student and a proposal to require safety training before students could ride a bike on a school campus in Williamson County. Fabien Maldonado, MD, MSc,Professor of Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, was on WTVF News Channel 5‘s live studio show, “Openline,” with host Ben Hall, to discuss lung cancer, treatment and prevention. WSMV’s “Today In Nashville” program hosted Vanderbilt LifeFlight paramedic/flight nurse practitioner Tony Smith to talk about safety for the CMA Festival. The New York Times reporter Carl Zimmer interviewed James Crowe, MD, Director of the Vanderbilt Center for Antibody Therapeutics, for a story about the race to find vaccines and treatments as Ebola spreads. The Vanderbilt Health News release about the pilot clinical trial conducted by Vanderbilt Health and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., that confirms the safety of ifetroban and supports the further development of the drug to prevent cancer metastasis, was picked up by Reuters, Stock Titan,and others. Women We Admire has named Lee Ann Liska, President and Chief Operating Officer, to its list of top women leaders of Nashville for 2026. Radiology Business, Aunt Minnie, Bioengineer, and Imaging Technology News covered the study from Consuelo Wilkins, MD, MSCI, the Mildred Thornton Stahlman Professor in Rural Health and professor of Medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine, that found Black and Hispanic people, while known to be far more apt to have dementia, are significantly less apt than other racial and ethnic groups to show Alzheimer’s pathology on brain scans. STAT News interviewed Deva Sharma, MD, Transfusion Medicine & Hematology-Oncology, for a story about more patients requesting unvaccinated blood and what it means for the medical system at large. Yahoo! Health reporter Korin Miller interviewed Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, Director of Obesity Medicine, for a story about how semaglutide and tirzepatide compare. William Schaffner, MD, Professor of Preventive Medicine, was quoted by several news outlets about public health issues, including: NBC News (new COVID vaccinations); Medscape (pneumonia and sepsis); and CNN (protection from contagious viruses). Shelbyville Times-Gazette is repurposing Jessica Pasley’s July 2025 Vanderbilt Health News story on tick-borne illnesses as a front-page story.
Meet DFP Spring Fellow, Gideon Ondap, University of Maryland, College Park -
Gideon Ondap III is a second-year government and politics PhD student and a recipient of the President’s Fellowship at the University of Maryland, College Park. Gideon studies American politics with a focus on race and ethnic [...]
Back to Bohemia: Sudeten German gathering sparks Czech-German nationalist row
At the centre of the dispute lie the post-war laws authorising the expulsion of around three million ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia after 1945
Report details wide disparity between Native American and white health in South Dakota
The health disparity between Native American and white South Dakotans is among the largest racial or ethnic health gaps in the nation.
Report shows health care gaps for Hispanic Arkansans
No state has eliminated gaps in health care access, quality or outcomes between racial and ethnic groups.
Racial health-care problems are stubborn — and they're particularly bad in Ohio, report says
Ohio has persistent and severe racial and ethnic health disparities. After cuts by the Trump administration, they'll get worse, a report says
Global Health & WASH: May 2026 Funding Opportunities (14 new opportunities!)
The May update for Global Health & WASH brings new calls that cluster around three distinct shifts: LMIC research leadership moving from funder encouragement into a hard eligibility constraint, pharmaceutical and corporate-linked funders running structurally independent education and use-inspired research portfolios at substantial scale, and AI adoption shifting decisively from speculative tool to operational capability across health and WASH systems alike. In LMIC Research Leadership as Eligibility, Not Encouragement, Wellcome anchors the dominant signal of the month with three separate major calls that all require or strongly center LMIC leadership in their basic eligibility architecture. Wellcome’s ESIC Hubs (£1.5-£1.9M per hub over 3-5 years) explicitly requires an LMIC-based lead applicant, treating Global South leadership as a design constraint rather than a participation goal. Wellcome’s Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Development Award funds transdisciplinary teams whose lead must be a mid-career or established researcher based at an organization in Africa, South Asia, or Southeast Asia. Wellcome’s larger Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Award (£1M-£8M for optimizing licensed interventions) requires the administering organization to be in eligible LMIC regions and at least 50% of applicants based there. Around Wellcome, the same pattern shows up at smaller scale and across funders: CHINNOVA channels $1M into West and Central African research institutions for climate-health work; IBRO’s Neuroscience Training Grants explicitly tier ceilings by region of residence with Africa receiving the highest amount ($5,000); IHME’s GBD Emerging Researcher Award reserves at least one of its two annual awards for an LMIC researcher; Sidaction’s HIV Cure call funds research teams across France, the Netherlands, and eligible African countries with a minimum two-country collaboration requirement. Taken together, these calls signal a meaningful shift in how research equity is being operationalized — not as encouragement language at the bottom of a call, but as a structural feature of who can lead, where the work must be administered, and what proportion of the team must be regionally rooted. In Pharma-Funded Independent Medical Education and Use-Inspired Research, the lineup this month is unusually deep. Pfizer alone runs four parallel calls under independent education and quality improvement frameworks: a Migraine and Women’s Health RFP (200K x 2-year, $500K pool), Migraine IME ($200K, $1M pool), JAK Inhibitor evidence-based education ($100K), and Maternal Vaccination HCP Education in Saudi Arabia ($75K), plus a separate Pediatric Pneumococcal Surveillance research call in Saudi Arabia ($400K per project). Novo Nordisk Foundation runs four parallel calls of its own at substantial scale: Infectious Diseases Catalyst Grants (DKK 60M pool, up to DKK 7M collaborative), Non-Diabetic Endocrinology Collaborative Grants (DKK 53M pool, DKK 5-10M per project), Pioneer Innovator Grant Health (DKK 1.1M), and Distinguished Innovator Grant Health (DKK 6.8M). LEO Foundation deploys DKK 2-4M per project for dermatology research excellence. Pfizer’s framing across calls deliberately separates the funding from product promotion, emphasizing measurable practice-relevant change and structural distance between scientific outputs and commercial activity. Novo Nordisk’s “use-inspired” hard filter pushes researchers toward a credible translation pathway from mechanism to deployable tool. The pattern: industry-aligned funders are running structurally independent portfolios at meaningful $ that fund implementation evidence, not promotion. In AI as Operational Capability, Not Speculation, several calls this month explicitly treat AI adoption as a near-term operational question with real evidence and governance requirements, rather than a speculative trend to be watched. Wellcome’s ESIC Hubs frames AI as “the accelerator” for evidence synthesis, asking hubs to translate technical innovation into adoption-ready workflows that can match real-world policy timelines. UNICEF Venture Fund’s new Climate Tech for Children’s Health call funds for-profit startups deploying AI, machine learning, and blockchain in low-resource environments, with a strict requirement that solutions must already have a working prototype with promising pilot results. The Water Research Foundation has launched two simultaneous AI calls treating reproducibility, cybersecurity guardrails, and human-in-the-loop deployments as core design constraints rather than nice-to-haves: one on GenAI and Agentic AI in water utilities ($200K), one on alternatives to water shutoffs that explicitly screens for implementation economics evidence. Nordic Innovation’s quantum technology call (NOK 4.5M) extends the same logic into life science and healthcare, demanding consortium-stage projects mature enough to test with real users. TEF-Health offers €300K in subsidized testing infrastructure for European healthcare AI and robotics SMEs. The pattern: funders are converting AI pilots into playbooks, requiring transfer evidence and risk controls before AI can move from experimentation to sector-wide operational practice. For LMIC-based researchers in infectious disease or evidence synthesis, the three Wellcome calls together represent the deepest concentration of LMIC-led research capital in recent memory — pair the Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Development Award (£200K, deadline May 19) as a strategic pipeline feeder into the larger Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Award (£1-£8M, deadline June 2), since the development award functions explicitly as a track into the larger trial scheme. For Nordic researchers, the four Novo Nordisk Foundation calls plus LEO Foundation and Nordic Innovation Quantum represent ~$30M in regional research capital this cycle, all with deadlines clustered in May-August. For WASH practitioners, the three Water Research Foundation calls together (each up to $200K) are a cluster worth reading across — one on AI deployment, one on shutoff alternatives, one rewarding applied innovation — and the strongest applicants will articulate how their work bridges utility operations to policy-relevant evidence. For US-based clinical researchers and educators, the four Pfizer calls plus the APF Portfolio’s 80+ programs form an unusually accessible recurring pipeline; APF’s prohibition on indirect costs is a meaningful structural feature for early-career applicants whose institutions might otherwise absorb significant overhead. Snapshot of New Opportunities Total Estimated Funding Pool: $100 Million+ USD The grants are organized into three categories: Open Calls: Current grant and opportunities with a deadline. Grants are listed by closing date. 39 open opportunities- 14 new! Rolling Applications: current grant and opportunities with rolling applications (but it’s still best to submit as early as possible). 14 rolling opportunities- 1 new opportunity! Long term planning: Grants that have closed their current rounds, but are expected to open new windows. 4 long term opportunities! A quick tip for returning readers: if you want to jump straight to the newest additions, use CTRL F to search for “New!” and navigate quickly to the latest funding opportunities This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. Open Calls: Migraine Competitive Grant Program: Migraine and Women’s Health (Quality Improvement and/or Research RFP), Pfizer.*Closing soon!* Pfizer, in collaboration with the American Headache Society, is seeking independent quality improvement and research projects that close persistent gaps in migraine care for women across the United States. The funding logic centers on measurable, practice-relevant change: proposals should generate actionable evidence, tools, or system improvements that can be shared and used widely, not just within a single site. Priority areas span menstrual migraine and screening in women’s health settings, the role of hormonal fluctuations across the lifespan, sex-specific risk factors, comorbidities and quality-of-life burden, and disparities in outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The call is structured as a two-step competitive process with an initial Letter of Intent, with the strongest concepts expected to translate scientific insight into implementable improvements in diagnosis, management, and equity. Geographies: United States. Who can apply: U.S.-based organizations (not individuals), including professional schools, healthcare institutions, professional organizations, and other entities focused on healthcare improvement. Funding amount: Up to USD $200,000 total over 2 years; total pool USD $500,000. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: migraine, women’s health, quality improvement, clinical research, menstrual migraine, health disparities. Deadline: LOI: May 5, 2026; Full proposal (by invitation): August 28, 2026. Learn more and apply here. This RFP rewards “shareable impact”: the most competitive submissions will pair rigorous methods with a clear plan for system uptake and dissemination beyond the originating institution. ReSSARC: Strengthening the Health Sector and Food Security in the Central African Republic (AID 013381/01/0) Call for Proposals, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS). *Closing soon!* AICS is seeking a limited set of high-capacity humanitarian partners to deliver an integrated package that stabilizes essential health services while reducing acute malnutrition and strengthening food security resilience in priority areas of the Central African Republic. The funder’s logic is explicitly nexus-based: proposals should meet urgent, life-saving needs while reinforcing local systems, coordination mechanisms, and community-level capacity so results persist beyond the emergency window. AICS emphasizes inclusion and protection outcomes, expecting gender-sensitive design and explicit measures for groups facing compounded vulnerability, including women, children under five, internally displaced people, and people with disabilities. The call also signals a localization pathway, encouraging stronger collaboration with national NGOs and balanced partnerships, alongside clear coordination with existing cluster and humanitarian actors to minimize duplication and improve coverage. Geographies: Central African Republic (Bangui, Ombella-Mpoko, Ouham, Ouham-Pende, Lim-Pende, Lobaye). Who can apply: Non-profit organizations registered with AICS, plus eligible non-profits without an office in Italy that have a pre-existing collaboration agreement with an AICS-listed organization. Funding amount: Total pool EUR €1,800,000; max EUR €800,000 (single applicant) or EUR €1,000,000 (ATS). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: malnutrition prevention and treatment, maternal and child health, community health services, food security and resilience, localization partnerships Deadline: May 5, 2026. Learn more and apply here. This call is structured to reward partners who can link frontline service delivery to system durability and localization, not just short-term coverage gains. Contracts for Innovation in drug and alcohol addiction healthcare, Innovate UK. *Closing soon!* Innovate UK, on behalf of the Office for Life Sciences Addiction Healthcare Goals program, is procuring R&D to accelerate innovations that can improve treatment outcomes, strengthen recovery, and reduce harm and deaths linked to drug and alcohol addiction. The competition is positioned as a market-facing readiness push: selected projects are expected to advance solutions toward later-stage validation, generate evidence of user acceptability and UK market fit, and map credible routes through regulatory and certification requirements. Innovate UK signals a preference for innovations that can be field-tested in relevant UK settings and progressed to TRL 6 or 7, with practical plans for commercialization after contract completion. This structure favors applicants that can execute most work in-house, co-develop with service providers and people with lived experience, and translate technical progress into deployable tools for addiction healthcare delivery. Geographies: United Kingdom. Who can apply: Single organizations of any size (including EU, EEA, or international) leading delivery, with most work and key deliverables carried out in the UK; subcontractors for specialist skills only. Funding amount: GBP £200,000–1.5 million per project (inclusive of VAT); Total pool: GBP £20 million (across two strands). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Focus areas: Mental Health, Health Systems Strengthening, Research & Development, Technology Access. Deadline: May 6, 2026 (11:00am). Learn more and apply here. This call uses procurement to pull near-market addiction innovations toward operational proof and adoption pathways in UK services.
The future of Latino politics just played out in Whittier
Whittier elected a Latino-majority council for the first time in the city's history. But for the three winning Latino candidates, their ethnicity was an afterthought.
Mississippi ranks last in U.S. on healthcare outcomes and disparities
The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation focused on healthcare issues, released a report Wednesday that provided a nationwide look at how health outcomes, access to care, and quality of care differ based on racial and ethnic identity. The report shows that, compared to national rates, a higher number of Mississippians die from avoidable deaths, lack health insurance, and have less preventative care such as cancer screenings. These trends are heightened for Black Mississippians.
Meet 2026 RBSI Scholar, Kaitlynne Franklin, Southern Illinois University Carbondale -
Kaitlynne Franklin, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Kaitlynne Franklin is a first-generation Southern Illinois University Carbondale political science student with plans to pursue a Ph.D. in American politics, specializing in race and ethnic politics. She has [...]
Report: Oklahoma health system performs poorly across all racial, ethnic groups
Health research and policy nonprofit the Commonwealth Fund warns that federal cuts and restrictions to Medicaid and the ACA Marketplace could worsen outcomes.
Hispanic population experiences worst health care outcomes, access in Texas, report finds
A new report from the Commonwealth Fund found Texas has worse racial and ethnic health disparities than other states in the Southwest.
Report: Arkansas worst in nation on healthcare for Hispanic residents
Arkansas ranks worst in the nation on health system performance for Hispanic residents, according to a new report that found existing racial and ethnic health disparities are likely to worsen in every state under recent federal policy changes.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
The fight against ‘medical misogyny’ is far from over
Letter: Ethnicity, culture and access continue to shape who is believed, how quickly, and with what outcome, says Vanessa Haye
Urban Mission joins national effort to spotlight health disparities
As organizations nationwide mark a month dedicated to educating people about health disparities affecting racial and ethnic minority communities, the Urban Miss
Ye attempts a comeback with sold-out LA-area concert, support from Lauryn Hill
e grammy-awards music race-and-ethnicity antisemitism entertainment | Talk Radio 1210 WPHT
The Los Angeles fashion trend of the year is politics
LA Fashion Week is marked with multiethnic designers and pieces of cultural heritage.
Kosovo postpones controversial foreign visitor law
The law would have hit Serb nationals as well as ethnic Serbs in Kosovo, benefiting from their services
Detroit Repertory Theatre stands the test of time creating opportunities, entertainment
For 69 years, the Detroit Repertory Theatre mission has been to cast the best actor for the job, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.
Not The War on Science I Expected
When prominent new atheists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne air their grievances with the scientific establishment, what do they champion, and what do they shoot down? Sex and gender, race and ethnicity, postmodernism and feminism—it is all there.
Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity
This analysis examines how people of color fare compared to White people across 64 measures of health, health care, and social determinants of health using the most recent data available from federal surveys and administrative sets as well as the 2023 KFF Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health.
On 23rd Street, ethnic restaurants are losing a lot of business, as ICE fears keep diners home
On 23rd Street in Richmond, ethnic restaurants are losing a lot of business, as ICE fears keep diners home.
Thirty Years of Onion Politics: Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement
The Dayton Peace Agreement ended the Bosnian War, establishing the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It achieved its immediate aim of ending direct violence, yet ended up creating a state apparatus that obstructs social equality and economic sovereignty. This Spotlight argues that the evaluation of its success must take two problems into account: the cementation of ethnic categories as foundational levels of governance and the resulting failure to address or transform war legacies; and the institutionalized international involvement undermining democratic self-determination.
New APHA Book Warns Social Systems Are Driving Deepening Health Inequities
Penn Nursing Dean Antonia Villarruel co-authors the work that examines how social determinants of health are different across multiple racial and ethnic groups
Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Health: Current Status and Key Issues
This brief includes data on pregnancy and birth outcomes by race and ethnicity, describes the underlying factors driving disparities, and discusses current policies affecting maternal and infant health disparities.