Category: United States of America

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Markey, Rep. Titus Announce Legislation to Advance LGBTQ+ Rights Globally

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Bill Text (PDF)

    Washington (June 30, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today joined Representative Dina Titus (NV-01) to announce the introduction of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (GLOBE) Act, legislation that would reaffirm U.S. leadership in advancing the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals around the world.

    “This Pride Month, we must continue to advocate for freedom and equality – regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation – for every person, in the U.S. and around the world,” said Senator Markey. “With bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on the rise, we must push back on discriminatory practices and strive to protect and improve the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals everywhere.”

    “No person should suffer from discrimination because of who they are or whom they love,” said Representative Titus. “Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. is failing to protect the rights of LGBTQI people at home and abroad. This bill will help restore our role in promoting LGBTQI rights around the world and punishing regimes that persecute people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Through his executive orders and DEI initiative, President Trump has attacked fundamental human rights and the dignity of the LGBTQI community. The GLOBE Act counters this by outlining a vision for U.S. leadership in the protection of LGBTQI rights globally.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.).

    Senator Markey previously introduced the GLOBE Act in 2023. Recently, Senator Markey co-sponsored the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act that would push back against the Trump administration’s attempts to target the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals nationwide.

    Senator Markey also joined his colleagues in delivering a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pressing the Trump administration on their retreat from longstanding efforts to promote human rights and democracy worldwide.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Funding terror: how west Africa’s deadly jihadists get the money they need to survive

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Egodi Uchendu, Professor (of History and International Studies), University of Nigeria

    The west Africa–Sahel region has seen a proliferation of militant Islamist groups since the 1990s.

    One of the most vicious groups operating in the region is Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (Support Group for Islam and Muslims). The militant group emerged in 2017 in Algeria and Mali, and has targeted civilian populations.

    The UN listed the group as an al-Qaeda affiliate in 2018. Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organisation founded by Osama bin Laden in the 1980s.

    The 2024 global terrorism index listed Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin as one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organisations. Its influence has expanded in most parts of the Sahel. The group emerged to strengthen the jihadist insurgency under al-Qaeda. It combines violence with diplomacy to expand its influence and challenge state authorities.

    Despite growing pressure from counter militancy campaigns spearheaded by local, regional and international militaries, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin continues to survive and adapt by regrouping and reorganising. This was demonstrated in its latest operation in Burkina Faso in 2024. The group exerted significant control by closing schools, setting up taxation checkpoints and abducting locals.

    Its engagement in illicit economies has been key to the group’s successful expansion. This revenue is used to carry out devastating attacks.

    We research jihadi-based insurgencies, and have found that this is a common tactic among terrorist groups in the west Africa-Sahel axis, including Boko Haram militants.

    From our research, we find that Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin funds its activities by relying on

    • artisanal mining

    • kidnapping

    • livestock theft

    • money laundering.

    Dismantling the group’s illicit economies and blocking its financial flows are key to countering its activities.

    Financial resources

    The group needs money for fighting, and to sustain political and social influence in its areas of operation.

    Artisanal gold mining has proven to be a major factor in its expansion and resilience. In areas where the group exerts influence, illicit gold mining generates over US$30 billion annually. According to a report by Swissaid, a development group based in Switzerland, the main destinations for this gold are the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Switzerland.

    The jihadists gain access to gold by controlling mining sites and transport routes to and from mines. They sometimes allow trusted allies, who include local armed groups, bandits and other criminal networks, to mine in exchange for a payout. The extent of gold mining funds is not exactly known, but the artisanal sites in areas controlled by the group have the capacity to produce 725 kilograms of gold per year, valued at US$34 million.




    Read more:
    West Africa could soon have a jihadist state – here’s why


    Another source of income – and political influence – is kidnapping for ransom. Kidnap victims include cattle owners, businessmen, state officials and foreigners. The group received a ₤30 million ransom in 2020 to release one French and two Italian hostages. Between 2017 and 2023, the group and its affiliated units were responsible for 845 out of approximately 1,100 recorded kidnappings in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. Burkina Faso and Mali remain the epicentre of the group’s violent activities. In the first quarter of 2023, over 180 cases of kidnapping were recorded in these countries’ war-torn areas.

    Livestock theft has also been a critical source of funds. The practice of livestock theft as economic warfare and a means to generate funds has led to livestock being forcibly taken from herders who fail to pay zakat (a religious fee among Muslims) or subscribe to the group’s ideology. The stolen livestock are sold in Mali, Mauritania or Senegal. The ability to monetise stolen livestock makes their theft a cornerstone of the Sahelian war economy and a source of cash for weapons and vehicles.

    Money laundering is another illicit economy central to the militant group’s financing. It lends money to merchants, invests with banks and funds small shops with the aim of getting profits. This helps ensure a constant flow of money and provisions to support the group’s terrorist acts. It has attached much importance to this illicit economy, to the extent of assassinating those who interfere with its investments.

    Way out

    To cut down Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin’s financial base – and thereby weaken its capacity for militancy – counterinsurgency efforts need to take the following actions.

    • Government security actors should collaborate with local self-defence militias to regulate artisanal mining and thwart kidnappings.

    • Financial intelligence units need to identify merchants who receive money from the militant group to block the flow of illicit funds.




    Read more:
    Jihadism and coups in West Africa’s Sahel region: a complex relationship


    • Specialised courts that deal with money laundering and terrorism financing cases should be established and made operational in Burkina Faso and Mali, the epicentres of the group’s activities.

    • Burkina Faso and Mali should increase security around civilians to minimise civilian casualties from terror operations.

    Since finance is the basis of the militant group’s strength, regional security co-operation should be strengthened. This would help with systematically tracking illicit flows and stopping them.

    Egodi Uchendu receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. She has also received funding from TETFund, Nigeria, the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA), Senegal, The A. G. Leventis Foundation, Greece, and the Fulbright Commission, USA.

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

    ref. Funding terror: how west Africa’s deadly jihadists get the money they need to survive – https://theconversation.com/funding-terror-how-west-africas-deadly-jihadists-get-the-money-they-need-to-survive-242306

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Johnson Releases Statement After Advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson
    WASHINGTON – On Saturday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released the following statement after voting in favor of the motion to proceed to Cal. #107, H.R.1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
    “Biden and the Democrats left behind enormous messes that we are trying to clean up – an open border, wars, and massive deficits. After working for weeks with President Trump and his highly capable economic team, I am convinced that he views this as a necessary first step and will support my efforts to help put America on a path to fiscal sustainability.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Valadao Works to Lower Central Valley Energy Costs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman David G. Valadao (California)

    WASHINGTON – Congressman David Valadao (CA-22) sent a letter alongside Reps. Vince Fong (CA-20), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), and Tom McClintock (CA-05) to applaud the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to rescind the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) and BLM.

    “Rescinding CalGem’s memorandum of understanding with BLM is a critical step toward restoring domestic oil production in the Central Valley,” said Congressman Valadao. “Kern County alone has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue and thousands of good-paying jobs because Sacramento bureaucrats refuse to issue permits in a timely and transparent way. By getting rid of this unnecessary red tape, we can get production back on track, lower energy costs for Valley families, and bring much-needed investment back to our communities.”

    “It is critical that the 2012 MOU between CalGEM and Bureau of Land Management be rescinded as a vital step toward restoring California’s energy production,” said Congressman Fong. “This decision removes barriers to needed energy production, reduces costs for families, strengthens economic stability, and reaffirms our commitment to American energy dominance. By streamlining permits and restoring the Bureau of Land Management’s authority over federal lands, we can unlock California’s energy potential, support good-paying jobs, and ensure affordable energy for families across our state.”

    “Under Governor Newsom, California has waged a war on oil production, hurting the economy in Kern County and threatening our ability to have affordable and reliable energy,” said Congressman LaMalfa. “Under the 2012 MOU between CalGEM and BLM, the state has been able to obstruct oil and gas production on Federal lands. This is completely unacceptable. Luckily, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum understands how this MOU is an obstacle to achieving energy dominance. I want to thank him for rescinding this MOU and allowing California’s oil and gas business to operate on Federal lands without interference from Governor Newsom.”

    Background:

    Oil production on federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plays a key role in California’s energy supply. While BLM continues to approve new drilling permits, CalGem now insists on a second, state-level permitting process, even though federal law does not give them authority over federal land. Over the last 15 years, BLM has gradually allowed CalGem to delay and influence permits through informal agreements—not through official law or policy change. This was accomplished through informal practices and agreements, not through statutory changes. As a result, more than 100 BLM-approved permits are now stuck, waiting for unnecessary approval from CalGEM.

    Read the full letter here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Alessandro Ghio, Research professor in Accounting, ESCP Business School

    In March 2025, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a leading accreditation body, revised its guiding principles. This included removing the phrase “diversity and inclusion” from its accreditation standards and replacing it with the more neutral “community and connectedness”. The decision emerged amid a shifting legal and political climate in the United States, following a wave of executive orders and legislative efforts aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public institutions.

    For years, diversity and inclusion have been central to how business schools engage with and signal social responsibility, shaping policies on faculty hiring, student recruitment and curricula. The AACSB change is more than a semantic adjustment – it reflects growing pressure on institutions to retreat from politically sensitive terrain.

    Now, business schools – many of which once celebrated DEI as a strategic and ethical imperative – are being forced to re-evaluate. Will they continue to invest in inclusion, or quietly abandon it under mounting institutional and political scrutiny? The answer will have global consequences, not just for higher education, but for the kind of leadership business schools claim to cultivate.

    Accreditation bodies: shaping business schools’ strategies

    The AACSB’s shift could have a significant impact on how business schools engage with diversity. As higher education institutions have embraced neoliberal, market-driven models, fuelled by students’ consumer-like expectations, external validation from accreditation bodies has become essential. Only 136 institutions (about 1% of all business schools) worldwide hold “triple accreditation” – accreditation by the AACSB, EFMD Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA). This status allows business schools to signal their elite standing and adherence to high international standards – and to charge higher tuition.

    Accreditation offers tangible benefits, including use of prestigious logos, membership in exclusive networks, mutual recognition of academic credits, student exchange opportunities, and access to shared resources and best practices. These benefits shape strategic decisions, as business schools prioritise accreditation to maintain their reputation and competitiveness to attract high-paying students.

    Many institutions even have associate or deputy deans dedicated to fulfilling accreditation requirements. Among these requirements has been the long-standing “diversity checkbox”, which required schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. AACSB was not alone in this focus: AMBA, another leading accreditation body that specialises in MBA programmes, annually recognises schools for their diversity efforts and initiatives promoting inclusion.

    Accreditation pressures are compounded by the influence of business school rankings, another powerful driver of institutional priorities. Rankings such as the Financial Times’ business school list include diversity-related indicators, such as gender balance in classrooms, representation of women among faculty, and international faculty diversity. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Best Schools Diversity Index placed US universities George Washington, Howard and Morgan State at the very top in 2024. While these institutions don’t typically rank highly in overall MBA rankings, the diversity index offered them visibility and a competitive edge to attract prospective students.

    With accreditation bodies and business school rankings shaping institutional identities, a key question emerges: will business schools continue to prioritise diversity if structural incentives erode, or will it quietly disappear from the agenda?

    Diversity at a crossroads

    While the language of diversity has become commonplace in business school messaging – “we place inclusion and diversity at the heart of everything we do”; we “engage with DE&I strategically, practically – and of course via forefront research”; we [“want] to encourage and contribute to the conversation on diversity for and with all the students” – many institutions have gone beyond rhetoric, implementing concrete policies to promote diversity across student bodies, faculty recruitment and course content.

    In France, the grandes écoles – often criticised for perpetuating social elitism, as highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – have introduced targeted admission pathways for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In the UK, business schools have begun auditing faculty diversity, particularly in terms of race and ethnicity. In Germany, where women professors remain underrepresented, ongoing efforts seek to address persistent gender imbalances in academic positions.

    These initiatives were not developed in a vacuum. Accreditation standards and external recognition gave institutions the legitimacy and incentive to act. Diversity became part of the strategic fabric – an ethical development, yes, but also a business case aligned with the values that accreditation and rankings rewarded.

    Now, with a major accreditation body stepping back and public discourse increasingly polarised, that alignment is beginning to fracture. In the US, federal support for diversity-related research is shrinking. Facing pressure from the Department of Education to end diversity initiatives or risk losing funding, some universities have already taken action by alternately moving to close DEI offices; removing references to DEI from websites, policies and official materials; or even cancelling a planned celebration of International Women’s Day.
    At least two US schools have either severed or planned to sever links with the PhD Project, a programme founded in 1994 that is devoted to “increasing the number of brilliant educators from all communities”. In Europe, some institutions may quietly reduce their commitments, no longer seeing DEI as worth the political or institutional risk.

    The dilemma is no longer about how to advance diversity – but whether to defend it at all. Business schools must decide: is diversity still central to their mission, or just another line item to be dropped when the pressure mounts?

    If business schools are serious about their social mission, they must continue investing in diversity – not as a symbolic gesture, but as a structural commitment. Diversity, equity and inclusion are not peripheral concerns; they are embedded in frameworks like the Principle of Responsible Management Education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5: Gender Equality; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities) – benchmarks that many institutions cite as central to their values. More than 30 Nordic business schools, all members of AACSB, recently issued a joint statement that diversity remains a core value for them.

    Diversity and knowledge

    Beyond institutional mandates, diversity is foundational to the production of credible knowledge. In Why Trust Science? (2019), historian Naomi Oreskes argues that while “diversity does not heal all epistemic ills”, it plays a crucial role in identifying blind spots and challenging groupthink. Drawing on feminist theorists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino, she shows how epistemic communities that are diverse – and critically engaged – are better positioned to identify and correct biases. In more homogeneous groups, dominant assumptions often go unchallenged, leading to structural oversights that undermine both knowledge and legitimacy.

    At a time when trust in academic institutions is eroding, ensuring diverse perspectives is not just desirable – it is necessary. For business schools, which train future leaders and decision-makers, the stakes are especially high.

    This is a moment not to retreat from diversity, but to reclaim it. Rather than treating it as a politicized liability, schools can reassert it as a core academic and democratic value – a way of remaining relevant, rigorous and responsible. And in a climate where “woke” has become a catch-all insult, schools also have an opportunity to reclaim the term – not as provocation, but as a return to its original meaning: a principled alertness to social realities and structural injustice. The LGBTQI+ community’s reclamation of “queer” as a term of empowerment and resistance against societal norms can point the way.

    By reinforcing their commitment to diversity, business schools can help deepen critical inquiry, rebuild public trust in science and ultimately equip their students for leadership in this fractured world – which they will need to understand in all its complexity.

    Alessandro Ghio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively – https://theconversation.com/business-schools-are-facing-challenges-to-their-diversity-commitments-they-must-reinforce-them-to-train-leaders-effectively-252988

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Alessandro Ghio, Research professor in Accounting, ESCP Business School

    In March 2025, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a leading accreditation body, revised its guiding principles. This included removing the phrase “diversity and inclusion” from its accreditation standards and replacing it with the more neutral “community and connectedness”. The decision emerged amid a shifting legal and political climate in the United States, following a wave of executive orders and legislative efforts aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public institutions.

    For years, diversity and inclusion have been central to how business schools engage with and signal social responsibility, shaping policies on faculty hiring, student recruitment and curricula. The AACSB change is more than a semantic adjustment – it reflects growing pressure on institutions to retreat from politically sensitive terrain.

    Now, business schools – many of which once celebrated DEI as a strategic and ethical imperative – are being forced to re-evaluate. Will they continue to invest in inclusion, or quietly abandon it under mounting institutional and political scrutiny? The answer will have global consequences, not just for higher education, but for the kind of leadership business schools claim to cultivate.

    Accreditation bodies: shaping business schools’ strategies

    The AACSB’s shift could have a significant impact on how business schools engage with diversity. As higher education institutions have embraced neoliberal, market-driven models, fuelled by students’ consumer-like expectations, external validation from accreditation bodies has become essential. Only 136 institutions (about 1% of all business schools) worldwide hold “triple accreditation” – accreditation by the AACSB, EFMD Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA). This status allows business schools to signal their elite standing and adherence to high international standards – and to charge higher tuition.

    Accreditation offers tangible benefits, including use of prestigious logos, membership in exclusive networks, mutual recognition of academic credits, student exchange opportunities, and access to shared resources and best practices. These benefits shape strategic decisions, as business schools prioritise accreditation to maintain their reputation and competitiveness to attract high-paying students.

    Many institutions even have associate or deputy deans dedicated to fulfilling accreditation requirements. Among these requirements has been the long-standing “diversity checkbox”, which required schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. AACSB was not alone in this focus: AMBA, another leading accreditation body that specialises in MBA programmes, annually recognises schools for their diversity efforts and initiatives promoting inclusion.

    Accreditation pressures are compounded by the influence of business school rankings, another powerful driver of institutional priorities. Rankings such as the Financial Times’ business school list include diversity-related indicators, such as gender balance in classrooms, representation of women among faculty, and international faculty diversity. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Best Schools Diversity Index placed US universities George Washington, Howard and Morgan State at the very top in 2024. While these institutions don’t typically rank highly in overall MBA rankings, the diversity index offered them visibility and a competitive edge to attract prospective students.

    With accreditation bodies and business school rankings shaping institutional identities, a key question emerges: will business schools continue to prioritise diversity if structural incentives erode, or will it quietly disappear from the agenda?

    Diversity at a crossroads

    While the language of diversity has become commonplace in business school messaging – “we place inclusion and diversity at the heart of everything we do”; we “engage with DE&I strategically, practically – and of course via forefront research”; we [“want] to encourage and contribute to the conversation on diversity for and with all the students” – many institutions have gone beyond rhetoric, implementing concrete policies to promote diversity across student bodies, faculty recruitment and course content.

    In France, the grandes écoles – often criticised for perpetuating social elitism, as highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – have introduced targeted admission pathways for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In the UK, business schools have begun auditing faculty diversity, particularly in terms of race and ethnicity. In Germany, where women professors remain underrepresented, ongoing efforts seek to address persistent gender imbalances in academic positions.

    These initiatives were not developed in a vacuum. Accreditation standards and external recognition gave institutions the legitimacy and incentive to act. Diversity became part of the strategic fabric – an ethical development, yes, but also a business case aligned with the values that accreditation and rankings rewarded.

    Now, with a major accreditation body stepping back and public discourse increasingly polarised, that alignment is beginning to fracture. In the US, federal support for diversity-related research is shrinking. Facing pressure from the Department of Education to end diversity initiatives or risk losing funding, some universities have already taken action by alternately moving to close DEI offices; removing references to DEI from websites, policies and official materials; or even cancelling a planned celebration of International Women’s Day.
    At least two US schools have either severed or planned to sever links with the PhD Project, a programme founded in 1994 that is devoted to “increasing the number of brilliant educators from all communities”. In Europe, some institutions may quietly reduce their commitments, no longer seeing DEI as worth the political or institutional risk.

    The dilemma is no longer about how to advance diversity – but whether to defend it at all. Business schools must decide: is diversity still central to their mission, or just another line item to be dropped when the pressure mounts?

    If business schools are serious about their social mission, they must continue investing in diversity – not as a symbolic gesture, but as a structural commitment. Diversity, equity and inclusion are not peripheral concerns; they are embedded in frameworks like the Principle of Responsible Management Education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5: Gender Equality; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities) – benchmarks that many institutions cite as central to their values. More than 30 Nordic business schools, all members of AACSB, recently issued a joint statement that diversity remains a core value for them.

    Diversity and knowledge

    Beyond institutional mandates, diversity is foundational to the production of credible knowledge. In Why Trust Science? (2019), historian Naomi Oreskes argues that while “diversity does not heal all epistemic ills”, it plays a crucial role in identifying blind spots and challenging groupthink. Drawing on feminist theorists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino, she shows how epistemic communities that are diverse – and critically engaged – are better positioned to identify and correct biases. In more homogeneous groups, dominant assumptions often go unchallenged, leading to structural oversights that undermine both knowledge and legitimacy.

    At a time when trust in academic institutions is eroding, ensuring diverse perspectives is not just desirable – it is necessary. For business schools, which train future leaders and decision-makers, the stakes are especially high.

    This is a moment not to retreat from diversity, but to reclaim it. Rather than treating it as a politicized liability, schools can reassert it as a core academic and democratic value – a way of remaining relevant, rigorous and responsible. And in a climate where “woke” has become a catch-all insult, schools also have an opportunity to reclaim the term – not as provocation, but as a return to its original meaning: a principled alertness to social realities and structural injustice. The LGBTQI+ community’s reclamation of “queer” as a term of empowerment and resistance against societal norms can point the way.

    By reinforcing their commitment to diversity, business schools can help deepen critical inquiry, rebuild public trust in science and ultimately equip their students for leadership in this fractured world – which they will need to understand in all its complexity.

    Alessandro Ghio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively – https://theconversation.com/business-schools-are-facing-challenges-to-their-diversity-commitments-they-must-reinforce-them-to-train-leaders-effectively-252988

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Bernard Laurent, Professeur, EM Lyon Business School

    In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles. Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock

    On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour une écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins : l’impossible découplage ? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).

    The Pope was taking a cue from his predecessors. Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI had also expressed concern about the dramatic effects of an abusive exploitation of nature on humanity:

    “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”

    What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?



    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


    The “green” pope

    In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:

    “There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)

    Laudato Si’ was published by the Vatican on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.

    In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:

    “Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)

    Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”

    Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics.”

    In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.

    For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:

    • overconsumption in developed countries:

    “Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);

    • the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:

    “Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);

    • the hypertrophy of speculative finance:

    “Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);

    • the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:

    “In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);

    • the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones (§-51).

    Social justice and shrinking growth

    In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.

    Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).

    This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.

    In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.

    “Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193).

    Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.

    Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council

    ref. Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-and-laudato-si-an-ecological-turning-point-for-the-catholic-church-253977

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Bernard Laurent, Professeur, EM Lyon Business School

    In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles. Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock

    On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour une écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins : l’impossible découplage ? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).

    The Pope was taking a cue from his predecessors. Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI had also expressed concern about the dramatic effects of an abusive exploitation of nature on humanity:

    “Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”

    What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?



    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


    The “green” pope

    In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:

    “There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)

    Laudato Si’ was published by the Vatican on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.

    In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:

    “Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)

    Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”

    Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics.”

    In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.

    For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:

    • overconsumption in developed countries:

    “Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);

    • the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:

    “Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);

    • the hypertrophy of speculative finance:

    “Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);

    • the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:

    “In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);

    • the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones (§-51).

    Social justice and shrinking growth

    In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.

    Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).

    This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.

    In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.

    “Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193).

    Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.

    Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council

    ref. Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-and-laudato-si-an-ecological-turning-point-for-the-catholic-church-253977

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

    Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

    Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

    There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

    With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.




    À lire aussi :
    Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively


    Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

    Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

    Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

    Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.




    À lire aussi :
    Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights


    The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

    The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

    Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

    The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

    The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

    The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.




    À lire aussi :
    A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’


    In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

    Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

    Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

    Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

    ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: From the marriage contract to breaking the glass under the chuppah, many Jewish couples adapt their weddings to celebrate gender equality

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Samira Mehta, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies & Jewish Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

    The ketubah is a binding document in Jewish law that traditionally spells out a groom’s responsibilities toward his wife − but that many couples adapt to be more egalitarian. PowerSiege/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Traditional Jewish weddings share one key aspect with traditional Christian weddings. Historically, the ceremony was essentially a transfer of property: A woman went from being the responsibility of her father to being the responsibility of her husband.

    That may not be the first thing Americans associate with weddings today, but it lives on in rituals and vows. Think, in a traditional Christian wedding, of a bride promising “to obey” her husband, or being “given away” by her father after he walks her down the aisle.

    Feminism has changed some aspects of the Christian wedding. More egalitarian or feminist couples, for example, might have the bride be “given away” by both her parents, or have both the bride and groom escorted in by parents. Others skip the “giving” altogether. Queer couples, too, have reimagined the wedding ceremony.

    Mara Mooiweer, left, and Elisheva Dan dance during their socially distanced wedding in Brookline, Mass., during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    During research for my book “Beyond Chrismukkah,” about Christian-Jewish interfaith families, many interviewees wound up talking about their weddings and the rituals that they selected or innovated for the day to reflect their cultural background. Some of them had also designed their ceremonies to reflect feminism and marriage equality – something that the interfaith weddings had in common with many weddings where both members of the couple were Jewish.

    These values have transformed many Jewish couples’ weddings, just as they have transformed the Christian wedding. Some Jewish couples make many changes, while some make none. And like every faith, Judaism has lots of internal diversity – not all traditional Jewish weddings look the same.

    Contracts and covenants

    Perhaps one of the most important places where feminism and marriage equality have reshaped traditions is in the “ketubah,” or Jewish marriage contract.

    A traditional ketubah is a simple legal document in Hebrew or Aramaic, a related ancient language. Two witnesses sign the agreement, which states that the groom has acquired the bride. However, the ketubah is also sometimes framed as a tool to protect women. The document stipulates the husband’s responsibility to provide for his wife and confirms what he should pay her in case of divorce. Traditional ketubot – the plural of ketubah – did not discuss love, God or intentions for the marriage.

    A groom signs the ketubah as witnesses sit beside him in Jerusalem, Israel, in 2014.
    Dan Porges/Getty Images

    Contemporary ketubot in more liberal branches of Judaism, whether between opposite- or same-sex couples, are usually much more egalitarian documents that reflect the home and the marriage that the couple want to create. Sometimes the couple adapt the Aramaic text; others keep the Aramaic and pair it with a text in the language they speak every day, describing their intentions for their marriage.

    Rather than being simple, printed documents, contemporary ketubot are often beautiful pieces of art, made to hang in a place of prominence in the newlyweds’ home. Sometimes the art makes references to traditional Jewish symbols, such as a pomegranate for fertility and love. Other times, the artist works with the couple to personalize their decorations with images and symbols that are meaningful to them.

    Contemporary couples will often also use their ketubah to address an inherent tension in Jewish marriage. Jewish law gives men much more freedom to divorce than it gives women. Because women cannot generally initiate divorce, they can end up as “agunot,” which literally means “chained”: women whose husbands have refused to grant them a religious divorce. Even if the couple have been divorced in secular court, an “agunah” cannot, according to Jewish law, remarry in a religious ceremony.

    Contemporary ketubot will sometimes make a note that, while the couple hope to remain married until death, if the marriage deteriorates, the husband agrees to grant a divorce if certain conditions are met. This prevents women from being held hostage in unhappy marriages.

    Other couples eschew the ketubah altogether in favor of a new type of document called a “brit ahuvim,” or covenant of lovers. These documents are egalitarian agreements between couples. The brit ahuvim was developed by Rachel Adler, a feminist rabbi with a deep knowledge of Jewish law, and is grounded in ancient Jewish laws for business partnerships between equals. That said, many Jews, including some feminists, do not see the brit ahuvim as equal in status to a ketubah.

    Two female ducks are depicted on the ketubah hanging in the sunroom in Lennie Gerber and Pearl Berlin’s home in High Point, N.C.
    AP Photo/Allen G. Breed

    Building together

    Beyond the ketubah, there are any number of other changes that couples make to symbolize their hopes for an egalitarian marriage.

    Jewish ceremonies often take place under a canopy called the chuppah, which symbolizes the home that the couple create together. In a traditional Jewish wedding, the bride circles the groom three or seven times before entering the chuppah. This represents both her protection of their home and that the groom is now her priority.

    Many couples today omit this custom, because they feel it makes the bride subservient to the groom. Others keep the circling but reinterpret it: In circling the groom, the bride actively creates their home, an act of empowerment. Other egalitarian couples, regardless of their genders, share the act of circling: Each spouse circles three times, and then the pair circle once together.

    In traditional Jewish weddings, like in traditional Christian weddings, the groom gives his bride a ring to symbolize his commitment to her – and perhaps to mark her as a married woman. Many contemporary Jewish couples exchange two rings: both partners offering a gift to mark their marriage and presenting a symbol of their union to the world. While some see this shift as an adaptation to American culture, realistically, the dual-ring ceremony is a relatively new development in both American Christian and American Jewish marriage ceremonies.

    Finally, Jewish weddings traditionally end when the groom stomps on and breaks a glass, and the entire crowd yells “Mazel tov” to congratulate them. People debate the symbolism of the broken glass. Some say that it reminds us that life contains both joy and sorrow, or that it is a reminder of a foundational crisis in Jewish history: the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Others say that it is a reminder that life is fragile, or that marriage, unlike the glass, is an unbreakable covenant.

    Yulia Tagil and Stas Granin celebrate their union on July 25, 2010, at a square in Tel Aviv. The couple held a public wedding to protest Israeli marriage guidelines set by the chief rabbinate.
    Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

    Regardless of what it means, some contemporary couples both step on glasses, or have one partner place their foot on top of the other’s so that the newlyweds can break the glass together. The couple symbolize their commitment to equality – and both get to do a fun wedding custom.

    There are many other innovations in contemporary Jewish weddings that have much less to do with feminism and egalitarianism, such as personalized wedding canopies or wedding programs. But these key changes represent how the wedding ceremony itself has become more egalitarian in response to both feminism and marriage equality.

    Samira Mehta receives funding from the Henry Luce Foundation for work on Jews of Color.

    ref. From the marriage contract to breaking the glass under the chuppah, many Jewish couples adapt their weddings to celebrate gender equality – https://theconversation.com/from-the-marriage-contract-to-breaking-the-glass-under-the-chuppah-many-jewish-couples-adapt-their-weddings-to-celebrate-gender-equality-229084

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Who’s the most American? Psychological studies show that many people are biased and think it’s a white English speaker

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Katherine Kinzler, Professor of Psychology, University of Chicago

    Some people have a narrow view of who is American. The Good Brigade/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    In the U.S. and elsewhere, nationality tends to be defined by a set of legal parameters. This may involve birthplace, parental citizenship or procedures for naturalization.

    Yet in many Americans’ minds these objective notions of citizenship are a little fuzzy, as social and developmental psychologists like me have documented. Psychologically, some people may just seem a little more American than others, based on factors such as race, ethnicity or language.

    Reinforced by identity politics, this results in different ideas about who is welcome, who is tolerated and who is made to not feel welcome at all.

    How race affects who belongs

    Many people who explicitly endorse egalitarian ideals, such as the notion that all Americans are deserving of the rights of citizenship regardless of race, still implicitly harbor prejudices over who’s “really” American.

    In a classic 2005 study, American adults across racial groups were fastest to associate the concept of “American” with white people. White, Black and Asian American adults were asked whether they endorse equality for all citizens. They were then presented with an implicit association test in which participants matched different faces with the categories “American” or “foreign.” They were told that every face was a U.S. citizen.

    White and Asian participants responded most quickly in matching the white faces with “American,” even when they initially expressed egalitarian values. Black Americans implicitly saw Black and white faces as equally American – though they too implicitly viewed Asian faces as being less American.

    Similarly, in a 2010 study, several groups of American adults implicitly considered British actress Kate Winslet to be more American than U.S.-born Lucy Liu – even though they were aware of their actual nationalities.

    Importantly, the development of prejudice can even include feelings that disadvantage one’s own group. This can be seen when Asian Americans who took part in the studies found white faces to be more American than Asian faces. A related 2010 study found that Hispanic participants were also more likely to associate whiteness with “Americanness.”

    Who’s the American?
    AP Photo

    Language and nationality

    These biased views of nationality begin at a young age – and spoken language can often be a primary identifier of who is in which group, as I show in my book “How You Say It.”

    Although the U.S. traditionally has not had a national language, many Americans feel that English is critical to being a “true American.” And the president recently released an executive order claiming to designate English as the official language.

    In a 2017 study conducted by my research team and led by psychologist Jasmine DeJesus, we gave children a simple task: After viewing a series of faces that varied in skin color and listening to those people speak, children were asked to guess their nationality. The faces were either white- or Asian-looking and spoke either English or Korean. “Is this person American or Korean?” we asked.

    We recruited three groups of children for the study: white American children who spoke only English, children in South Korea who spoke only Korean, and Korean American children who spoke both languages. The ages of the children were either 5-6 or 9-10.

    The vast majority of the younger monolingual children identified nationality with language, describing English speakers as American and Korean speakers as Korean – even though both groups were divided equally between people who looked white or Asian.

    As for the younger bilingual children, they had parents whose first language was Korean, not English, and who lived in the United States. Yet, just like the monolingual children, they thought that the English speakers, and not the Korean speakers, were the Americans.

    As they age, however, children increasingly view racial characteristics as an integral part of nationality. By the age of 9, we found that children were considering the white English speakers to be the most American, compared with Korean speakers who looked white or English speakers who looked Asian.

    Interestingly, this impact was more pronounced in the older children we recruited in South Korea.

    Deep roots

    So it seems that for children and adults alike, assessments of what it means to be American hinge on certain traits that have nothing to do with the actual legal requirements for citizenship. Neither whiteness nor fluency in English is a requirement to become American.

    And this bias has consequences. Research has found that the degree to which people link whiteness with Americanness is related to their discriminatory behaviors in hiring or questioning others’ loyalty.

    That we find these biases in children does not mean they are in any way absolute. We know that children begin to pick up on these types of biased cultural cues and values at a young age. It does mean, however, that these biases have deep roots in our psychology.

    Understanding that biases exist may make it easier to correct them. So Americans celebrating the Fourth of July perhaps should ponder what it means to be an American – and whether social biases distort your beliefs about who belongs.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 2, 2020.

    Katherine Kinzler receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    ref. Who’s the most American? Psychological studies show that many people are biased and think it’s a white English speaker – https://theconversation.com/whos-the-most-american-psychological-studies-show-that-many-people-are-biased-and-think-its-a-white-english-speaker-256418

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 1 in 3 Florida third graders have untreated cavities – how parents can protect their children’s teeth

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Olga Ensz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Community Dentistry, University of Florida

    Many Florida children lack access to routine dental care. Lu ShaoJi/Moment via Getty Images

    “He hides his smile in every school photo,” Jayden’s mother told me, holding up a picture of her 6-year-old son.

    I first met Jayden – not his real name – as a patient at the University of Florida community dental outreach program in Gainesville, Florida. Jayden had visible cavities on his front teeth – dark spots that had become the target of teasing and bullying by classmates. The pain had become so severe that he began missing school. His family, living in a rural part of north Florida, had spent months trying to find a dentist who accepted Medicaid.

    In the meantime, Jayden stopped smiling.

    As a dental public health professional working in community dental outreach settings, I’ve seen firsthand how children across the state face significant barriers to achieving good oral health. Despite being largely preventable, tooth decay remains the most common chronic disease among children in the U.S., and Florida is no exception.

    Pediatric dental health in Florida

    Untreated dental problems can lead to pain, infection, difficulty eating or sleeping, and even affect a child’s ability to concentrate and learn. Poor oral health has also been linked to broader health issues such as heart disease.

    According to the most recent data available from the Florida Department of Health, nearly 1 in 3 third graders in the Sunshine State had untreated tooth decay – that is, cavities – during the 2021–2022 school year. That’s almost double the national average of 17% of children ages 6-9 with untreated tooth decay and underscores the severity of the issue in Florida.

    In addition, only 37% of Florida third graders had dental sealants. These thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of molars are proven to prevent up to 80% of cavities. Nationwide, 51.4% of kids have this cost-effective treatment.

    The most recent data available from the 2017-2018 school year shows that 24% of children ages 3-6 in Florida’s Head Start program, which provides free health and education for low-income families with young children, had untreated tooth decay. By comparison, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 11% of U.S. children ages 2-5 had untreated decay.

    These numbers represent children like Jayden, whose pain and missed school days are preventable.

    A 2023 report found that Florida children are increasingly visiting emergency rooms for nontraumatic dental conditions. Besides being costly and stressful for families, these visits generally provide only temporary relief. Emergency departments simply aren’t equipped to offer dental care that addresses the root problem.

    Slipping through the cracks

    Florida ranks among the worst states in the U.S. for dental care access, with over 5.9 million residents living in dental care health professional shortage areas. In fact, 65 of Florida’s 67 counties face shortages of dental professionals, with some areas reporting just 6.6 dentists per 100,000 people – far below the national average of 60.4.

    This lack of access to care is compounded by poverty and insurance limitations.

    More than 2 million Florida children are enrolled in Medicaid, but only 18% of Florida dentists – about 2,500 in total – accept it. And even families with private insurance often face high out-of-pocket costs, making essential dental care unaffordable for some. Delaying routine dental visits can allow minor issues to worsen over time, ultimately requiring more complex and costly treatment.

    As a result, Florida ranks 43rd out of 50 states in the percentage of children receiving dental care in the past year.

    Lack of awareness is also a problem. Research shows that many parents don’t realize their children should see a dentist by their first birthday, and that baby teeth matter just as much as adult teeth.

    Prevention works

    Historically, community water fluoridation has been one of the most effective public health strategies to reduce children’s tooth decay. While fluoridation is not meant to be a standalone prevention method, multiple studies have shown that it helps to prevent cavities in both children and adults. As recently as May 2024, the CDC supported the safety of this strategy.

    However, a new Florida law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 and going into effect on July 1, now prohibits local governments from adding fluoride to public drinking water. This makes other preventive treatments even more essential.

    Fluoride varnish, recommended by pediatric and dental associations, is a topical treatment that should be applied every 3-6 months to reduce the risk of tooth decay.

    When a child has just the beginnings of a cavity, silver diamine fluoride is a noninvasive liquid treatment that can stop it from progressing. This is especially beneficial for young children or those with limited access to care.

    These highly effective, evidence-based treatments are safe and cost-effective, and they can be delivered in schools, medical offices and clinics.

    Creating a fun brushing routine can help your child maintain a healthy smile.
    PeopleImages/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Keeping your kids’ teeth healthy

    Here are some steps parents can take right now to protect their child’s dental health:

    • Schedule regular dental visits, starting by age 1. Children should see a dentist by their first birthday or within six months of their first tooth. After that, annual visits help catch problems early, when treatment is easier and less expensive.

    • For families in areas with few dental providers, parents can ask their child’s pediatrician for referrals, check state Medicaid websites or use the American Association of Pediatric Dentists’ “Find a Pediatric Dentist” tool. Some communities also offer care through federally qualified health centers, dental schools or mobile clinics at low or no cost.

    • As soon as their teeth come in, children need to brush twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste. Use a smear of toothpaste about the size of a grain of rice for children under age 3, and a pea-sized amount for ages 3–5.

    • Make brushing a fun and supported routine. Help your child brush until they can do it well on their own, usually around age 7 or 8. Play a favorite song or video to make brushing time enjoyable.

    • Limit sugary snacks and drinks. Offer water and healthy snacks like fruits and vegetables. Avoid letting infants fall asleep with bottles of milk or juice, and limit sticky, sugary foods like candy, chips and cookies.

    • Ask your dentist about sealants and fluoride varnish. These treatments are especially important for children at higher risk for cavities, such as those with limited access to dental care, a family history of tooth decay, visible plaque or the habit of frequent snacking.

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

    ref. 1 in 3 Florida third graders have untreated cavities – how parents can protect their children’s teeth – https://theconversation.com/1-in-3-florida-third-graders-have-untreated-cavities-how-parents-can-protect-their-childrens-teeth-257200

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Andini Pramono, Research officer, Department of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University

    Research shows that six months of exclusive breastfeeding, and continuing until two years old or beyond, provide multiple benefits for the baby and mother.

    It can prevent deaths both in infants and mothers – including in wealthy nations like the United States. It also benefits the global economy and the enviroment.

    However, after maternity leave ends, mothers returning to paid work face many challenges maintaining breastfeeding. This often leads mothers to stop breastfeeding their children before six months – the duration of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others.

    According to the WHO, less than half of babies under six months old worldwide are exclusively breastfed.

    In Indonesia, research shows 83% of mothers initiate breastfeeding, but only 57% are still breastfeeding at around six months. In Australia, 96% of mothers start breastfeeding, but then there is a rapid fall to only 39% by around three months and only 15% by around five months.

    Among the key reasons for low rates of exclusive breastfeeding are the difficult work conditions women face when they return to paid work.

    So how can governments and workplaces – especially in countries that have yet to do enough, like Indonesia and Australia – better support breastfeeding mothers, particularly at work?

    Half a billion reasons to change

    For more than a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set global standards for maternity protection through the Maternity Protection Convention and accompanying recommendations, as well as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, aiming to protect female workers’ rights.

    So far, only 66 member states have ratified at least one of the Maternity Protection Conventions, while 43 have ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention. Unfortunately, Indonesia has not ratified either convention. So far, Australia has only ratified the family responsibilities convention.

    In some countries, protections are aligned with the ILO Conventions. For example, in Denmark and Norway, the governments offer maternity leave of at least 14 weeks. During leave, mothers’ earnings are protected at a rate of at least two-thirds of their pre-birth earnings. Public funds ensure this is done in a manner determined by national law and practice, so the employer is not solely responsible for the payment.

    A Canadian study highlights the proportion of mothers exclusively breastfeeding to six months increased by almost 40% when paid maternity leave was expanded from six to 12 months. At the same time, average breastfeeding duration increased by one month, from five to six months.

    Evidence shows paid maternity leave and providing an adequate lactation room at work both contribute positively to breastfeeding rates.

    Despite this, half a billion women globally still lack adequate maternity protections.

    For example, welfare reforms in the US encouraging new mothers’ return to work within 12 weeks led to a 16–18% reduction in breastfeeding initiation. It also saw a four to six week reduction in the time babies were breastfed.

    Indonesia and Australia aren’t doing enough

    Neither Indonesia or Australia are currently doing enough to meet the ILO’s maternity protection standards.

    In Indonesia, the 2003 Labour Law urges companies to give 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women workers to support breastfeeding. Furthermore, the 2012 regulation on exclusive breastfeeding obligates workplace and public space management to provide a space or facility to breastfeed and express breast milk. However, the monitoring of its implementation is weak.

    In Australia, paid parental leave (PPL) policy supports parents who take time off from paid work to care for their young children.

    Eligible working mothers or primary carers are entitled to up to 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if the child is born or adopted from 1 July 2024) of government paid parental leave within the first two years of the birth or adoption of a child.

    In the Federal Budget announced on 15 May 2024, the Australian government has added payment of superannuation contributions to the parental leave package for births and adoptions on or after 1 July 2025. However, the PPL is a low amount, paid at the national minimum wage ($882.80 per week)].

    Some mothers can combine the government payment with additional paid leave from their employer. However in 2022-2023, only 63% of Australian employers offered this, leaving nearly half of new mothers with only minimum financial support.

    Unlike Indonesia, Australia has no legal requirement for employers to offer paid breastfeeding breaks in their workplace, so mothers can express and take home their breastmilk. This can badly impact women’s and children’s health.

    While Australia’s support for breastfeeding mothers is welcome, it’s still inadequate to meet the ILO’s international standard – particularly Australia’s low payment rate of government PPL (at the minimum wage, rather than two-thirds of previous earnings) and the lack of legislation for paid breastfeeding breaks.

    How employers and colleagues can help

    Globally, the barriers to maintain breastfeeding include not only lack of maternity leave duration and pay, but also unavailability of breastfeeding and breast pumping facilities at workplaces, sometimes unsupportive colleagues and supervisors, and lack of time at work to breastfeed or expressing breastmilk.

    Breastfeeding a baby should not preclude women from earning a living. In 2022, female workers were 39.5% of total workers globally, while in Australia and Indonesia they made up 47.4% and 39.5% respectively.

    An accessible facility or space for breastfeeding or breast pumping is vital to support breastfeeding working mothers.

    In Indonesia, a 2013 Ministry of Health regulation outlines the procedure for an employer to provide a space and facility for mothers to breastfeed and breast pump.

    The minimum specifications of this facility are described as a lockable, clean and quiet room, with a sink for washing, suitable temperature, lighting and flooring. While these specifications are technically mandatory, monitoring is weak, meaning if employers fail to meet the requirements there are no specific consequences.

    But a breastfeeding space alone is not enough. In many jobs, mothers cannot leave their tasks during working hours, even if there is a lactation room.

    Supportive employers need to regulate time and flexibility to breastfeed and express breastmilk, including providing flexible working arrangements and paid breastfeeding breaks during working hours. Supportive attitudes from co-workers and managers are also important.

    Suitable staff training on breastfeeding and policies supporting mothers, such as providing time and facility to express breastmilk in work hours, are crucial. Training on how to support co-worker can include anything from basic information breastfeeding, to what to say (or not say) with a breastfeeding co-worker.

    Access to supportive childcare is another issue globally.

    For those families who can access childcare, childcare centres can also help by:

    • encouraging and accommodating mothers to visit for breastfeeding
    • having written policies supporting breastfeeding
    • providing parents with resources on breastfeeding
    • and referring parents to community resources for breastfeeding support.

    Practical ways to support more families

    The Australian Breastfeeding Association has an accreditation program that helps workplaces to be breastfeeding-friendly. Workplace policies, including adequate time and space for pumping, are positively associated with longer breastfeeding duration.

    The program assesses workplaces for three aspects: time, space and supportive culture. This means, workplaces are encouraged to provide a special space and time for breastfeeding and breast pumping in a supportive culture and flexible working hours.

    Mothers should consider to prepare how to align breastfeeding with work early – during pregnancy. Start by discussing your breastfeeding goals with healthcare professionals and finding a baby-friendly hospital.

    Discuss your breastfeeding plan with your supervisor at work during your pregnancy, including finding out your maternity leave (paid and unpaid) entitlements. Also consider childcare arrangements that will work best for you with breastfeeding.

    For further information and support, you can find resources from local breastfeeding support groups, such as the Indonesian Breastfeeding Mothers Association and Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    Julie P. Smith is a qualified breastfeeding counselor and honorary member of the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    Andini Pramono dan Liana Leach tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    ref. Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this – https://theconversation.com/difficult-work-arrangements-force-many-women-to-stop-breastfeeding-early-heres-how-to-prevent-this-211831

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Edy Setyawan, Marine Ecologist, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    The reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) is a tough swimmer. They can travel hundreds of kilometres to feed themselves. The longest recorded movement for an individual reef manta ray was 1,150km, observed in eastern Australia.

    But even though they are able to swim long distances, our study on reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, discovered they are more likely to swim short distances. They appear to prefer staying close to their local habitats, strengthening their social bonds and forming distinct populations.

    Our research – involving researchers from Indonesia, New Zealand and Australia and published in the Royal Society Open Science journal in April – increases our understanding of this globally vulnerable species.

    Policymakers can use our findings to enhance conservation efforts for the species in Raja Ampat waters, which currently are facing challenges due to fishing and tourism.

    Why don’t reef manta rays roam far?

    Our study found reef manta rays occupy three distinct habitats within Raja Ampat. As of February 2024, we recorded 1,250 individual manta rays around Waigeo Island’s extensive coral reef ecosystem in the northwest of Raja Ampat; 640 manta rays around the coral reef ecosystem in the southeast of Misool, southern Raja Ampat; and no more than 50 manta rays in the Ayau atoll ecosystem up north.

    Within their own habitat, the manta rays tend to move around from one area to another, sticking to relatively short distances within 12 kilometres. They only occasionally make longer trips to similar areas in other habitats across Raja Ampat.

    We believe there are a few reasons why reef manta rays in Raja Ampat do not often venture far. The first reason is the presence of natural barriers, such as deep waters – over 1,000 metres below sea level – between Ayau Atoll and Waigeo Island, as well as the sea between Misool and Kofiau, which is 800-900 metres deep.

    Travelling through deep waters poses increased risks to reef manta rays due to potential encounters with natural predators, such as killer whales (Orcinus orca) and large sharks, which frequently inhabit deep open water.

    The second reason is that each habitat is well-equipped with sufficient resources, such as food and cleaning stations, reducing the need for the reef manta rays to travel extensively.

    Our previous research has identified dozens of feeding areas and cleaning stations in each habitat occupied by local populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

    Raja Ampat’s ‘small town’ of reef manta rays

    The habits of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat are gradually forming a unique population.

    We have found that they do not form a single large population, but instead split into three local populations, creating a metapopulation. A metapopulation consists of several local populations of the same species, each occupying its own habitat but all situated within the same geographic region.

    Think of a metapopulation as a small town, consisting of three hamlets. When each hamlet has enough food and water, the people prefer to stay in their own settlement. But they still live in the same town and occasionally visit each other.

    We found this movement pattern based on our tracking process from 2016 to 2021 using acoustic telemetry, which functions similarly to office check-in systems.

    In the tracking process, we combined this acoustic tracking with network analysis to map out the movement network of the manta rays, consisting of nodes and links. Nodes represent important areas for the manta rays, like cleaning stations and feeding areas, and links represent the movement between these key areas.

    The metapopulation occurs because individual manta rays migrate between local populations. Based on our observation, the migrating manta rays usually head back to their original area — it is often seasonal – while those that spread out generally do not return.

    This movement pattern means there is less mixing of individuals between local populations compared to within a single local population.

    How to better protect reef manta rays

    Some conservation policies and efforts have successfully increased the populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

    But increased human activities such as fishing and tourism in eastern Indonesia still pose challenges. While manta rays are not directly caught or hunted, they often get entangled in fishing lines and nets, which may cause harm and sometimes death.

    Additionally, with the increasing popularity of Raja Ampat as a top tourism destination, overcrowding and aggressive behavior by divers and snorkelers in Raja Ampat disrupt manta ray cleaning and feeding, which may affect their health and fitness.

    Conservation strategies for reef manta rays require a more precise and targeted approach to effectively address these growing challenges.

    The recognition of these rays as a metapopulation comprising three distinct local populations can inform a strategy shift in conservation management.

    Recently, we have presented our research findings and recommendations to the authorities responsible for managing the Raja Ampat Marine Protected Area (MPA) network.

    We recommend the MPA management authority in Raja Ampat create and implement three separate management units, each tailored to the specific needs of one of the local manta ray populations.

    Separate units are necessary because each habitat has different demographics and is far apart, making it difficult to manage them as a single unit. This strategy is feasible because local rangers in each habitat already conduct regular patrols and monitoring.

    We also see the urgent need to protect a critical area for various activities of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat called Eagle Rock, which is currently outside existing protected zones. Located in west of Waigeo, Eagle Rock could be effectively safeguarded by expanding the Raja Ampat MPA network to encompass this area.

    Protecting Eagle Rock is crucial, not only because it serves as a vital migration corridor connecting significant areas and habitats within the South East Misool MPA, Dampier Strait MPA, Raja Ampat MPA, and West Waigeo MPA, but also due to the increased threat from nickel mining activities on Kawe Island.

    MPAs prohibit industrial fishing, restrict tourism and all unsustainable activities — including mining — to minimise environmental impact.

    Besides mapping out the movement patterns and networks of key areas and habitats of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, our research lays the groundwork for future studies, including genetic analysis and satellite tracking.

    These advanced techniques can offer deeper insights into the population structure, home range, and distribution of reef manta rays in the region, helping to enhance management and conservation strategies.

    Edy Setyawan has received funding from the Manaaki New Zealand Scholarship – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) New Zealand, and the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN), United States.

    ref. We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them – https://theconversation.com/we-discovered-raja-ampats-reef-manta-rays-prefer-staying-close-to-home-which-could-help-us-save-more-of-them-230692

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

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

    ref. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University

    In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.

    Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.

    At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.

    Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.

    Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:

    1. Threats to Canada’s sovereignty

    In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.

    Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.

    The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.

    Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?




    Read more:
    How political party data collection may turn off voters


    Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection?
    (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL

    2. Threats to Canada’s future

    Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.

    Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.

    For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.




    Read more:
    A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits


    In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.

    University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.

    Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.

    But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.

    3. Secret personal data collection

    Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.

    If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.

    4. Data can be dangerous in the wrong hands

    Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.

    Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”

    Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?

    What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?

    What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?

    OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.

    If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.

    Strengthening democracy

    Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.

    The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.

    Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.

    Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.

    ref. 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-bill-c-4s-threats-to-canadian-privacy-and-sovereignty-259331

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

    Residents of Los Angeles will need to get used to federally controlled National Guard troops operating on their streets. Due to a ruling from an appeals court on June 19, United States President Donald Trump now has broad authority to deploy military forces in American cities.

    This is a troubling development. All presidents have held in their grasp extraordinary powers to deploy military troops domestically. But Trump stands apart with his apparent keen interest in manufacturing false emergencies to exploit extraordinary power.

    An 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act restricts using the military for domestic law enforcement. The broader principle being challenged by Trump’s actions in L.A. is the norm of the military not being allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian governance.

    Injunctions and appeals

    Five months into Trump’s presidency, L.A. has been targeted for aggressive immigration enforcement. In their pluralistic city where dozens of languages and nationalities peacefully co-exist, some Angelenos believe the city is experiencing an attack on its most essential social fabric.

    On June 7, Trump acted under United States Code Title 10 provisions to take over command and control of California’s National Guard. Federalized military forces were deployed.

    The objective was to counter what Trump argued was a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. In fact, these “rebellions” were largely peaceful protests in downtown L.A.

    On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted an injunction restraining the president’s use of military force in L.A. The court order supported Gov. Gavin Newsom’s contention that Trump overstepped his authority.

    On June 19, a decision from a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction.

    What this means at the moment is that Trump does not have to return control of the troops to Newsom. California has options to continue litigation by asking the Federal Appeals Court to rehear the matter, or perhaps directly asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

    Moving toward authoritarianism

    Trump’s June 7 memorandum facilitating his move to overrule Newsom’s authority and seize control of 2,000 National Guard troops was based on the president defining his own so-called emergency.

    He claimed incidents of violence and disorder following aggressive immigration enforcement amounted to a form of rebellion against the U.S.

    As Trump flexes his emergency power might, his second term has been called the 911 presidency. He has used extraordinary emergency powers at a pace well beyond his predecessors, pressing the limits to address his administration’s supposed sense of serious perils overtaking the nation.

    Issues arise when the level of actual danger locally is not at all representative of what the president suggests is a full-scale national emergency. For example, demonstrations over immigration raids occupied only a tiny parcel of real estate in L.A.’s huge metropolitan area. A Los Angeles-based rebellion against the U.S. was not occurring.

    As dissent over aggressive immigration enforcement actions grew, localized clashes with law enforcement did occur. Mutual aid surged into Los Angeles, where neighbouring California law enforcement agencies acted to assist one another. The law enforcement challenges never rose to the level of the governor of California requesting additional federal support.

    Shortly after the federal government took over the California National Guard, Newsom said the move was purposefully inflammatory.

    In addition to declaring dubious emergencies to amass power, stoking violence is a characteristic of authoritarian rulers. Creating fear, division and feelings of insecurity can lead to community crises. Trump did not need to wait for a crisis; it seems he simply invented one.

    No guardrails

    The expression “out of kilter” comes to mind as Trump inches closer to invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. If so, the situation will look quite similar in practice to what is happening now in Los Angeles.

    Five years ago, Trump flirted with invoking the Insurrection Act during Black Lives Matter unrest in Washington, D.C., in and around Lafayette Park.

    As recent L.A. protests intensified, Trump stated: “We’re going to have troops everywhere.”

    Currently, there are few guardrails in place to prevent a rogue president from misusing the military in domestic civilian affairs. Trump has been coy about whether he would tap into the greater powers available to him under the Insurrection Act.

    Real emergencies presenting existential threats to America do persist. Nuclear proliferation, climate change and pandemics need serious leaders. But politically exploiting last-resort emergency laws designed to provide options to deal with genuine existential threats — not to weaponize them against protesters demonstrating against public policy — is absurd.

    Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    ref. Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities – https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-ruling-grants-donald-trump-broad-powers-to-deploy-troops-to-american-cities-258894

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

    Rethinking the college major could help colleges better understand what employers and students need. Westend61/Getty Images

    Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

    The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

    Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

    Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

    The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

    To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

    The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

    This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

    As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

    Students want flexibility

    The college curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.
    MoMo Productions/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

    A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

    And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

    Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

    As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

    How schools are responding

    The college major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge.
    Fuse/Corbia via Getty Images

    In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

    At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

    Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

    The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

    Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

    Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

    Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

    Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

    Reenvisioning the college major

    Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

    This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

    Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

    One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

    Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

    It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

    Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

    We take the college major for granted.

    Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

    Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

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

    ref. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Wilkinson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of British Columbia

    Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April’s federal election.

    Mark Carney’s new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history.

    Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation.




    Read more:
    Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump’s trade war — but it’s important not to take national pride too far


    Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed.

    For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin.




    Read more:
    This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about ‘land back’


    What is a nation?

    Both perspectives — and the public discussion of Canada’s national identity more generally — remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve.

    In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together.

    In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities,” since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens.

    These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community.

    There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers.

    Nations vs. states

    A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase “the people” is often used as a synonym for the national community.

    While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state.

    In Canada, there is the Québécois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada’s national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments — from Confederation onward — to build the society that Canadians live in today.

    The character of a particular nation is not fixed.

    The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence.

    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community’s past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better.

    Patriotism vs. nationalism

    A distinction is sometimes drawn between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell.

    For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one’s nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one’s nation.

    Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as “liberal nationalism.”

    The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress.

    In 1867, George-Étienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a “political nationality.” He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity.

    More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy.

    Cartier’s concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead.

    Reshaping Canadian identity

    In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada’s post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada’s national identity.




    Read more:
    40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada


    Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the “deux nations” origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out.

    As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada’s national identity wasn’t nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples.

    The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada’s identity. Canada’s national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community.

    This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time — including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada.

    In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada’s political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation — and it’s work worth doing.

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

    ref. Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-how-canadian-nationalism-is-evolving-with-the-times-and-will-continue-to-do-so-259352

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How social media is changing the game for athletes

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elyse Gorrell, PhD, CMPC, Brock University

    A landmark multibillion-dollar legal settlement is set to transform the landscape of college sports in the United States. A court recently approved the House v. NCAA settlement, requiring the NCAA (the National Collegiate Athletic Association) to pay nearly US$2.8 billion in damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed from 2016 through to the present day.

    The settlement opens the door for college athletes to earn a share of revenue moving forward, marking a shift away from the traditional ideals of amateurism in sport.

    Amateurism was traditionally defined as the notion of athletes playing sport for the love of it rather than for financial reasons. Historically, it was created by upper-class elite groups as a way to exclude others. Today, its definition continues to be contested, especially since many athletes have been exploited by amateurism.

    The concept of NIL (name, image and likeness) has only exacerbated this by encouraging athletes to promote themselves on social media. Some sport organizations now even factor social media presence into recruitment decisions.

    These developments raise key questions: should we be treating athletes as brands? And what are the consequences of doing so, both on and off the field?

    Social media and the modern athlete

    Social media offers a way for athletes to build a community of followers, share and discuss their personal lives, and interact with fans.

    For many athletes, social media platforms have become tools for building a personal brand and differentiating themselves from other competitors and ultimately having more control over their public image. In turn, social media can allow them to seek out sponsorships and endorsement deals.

    However, research also shows there are negative side-effects of social media use. It also exposes athletes to public scrutiny and online abuse from fans, and can lead to effects similar to cyber-bullying.

    One study of NCAA Division I athletes found that maintaining a polished image on Twitter lead student-athletes to censor themselves to uphold a certain image, which stifled their self-expression. Athletes also reported that social media affected their concentration and raised performance anxiety due to pressure to perform well or face negative critiques.

    Other research has found that platforms like Facebook can distract athletes from optimal mental preparation. The pressure to manage and maintain a personal brand can result in some athletes prioritizing online presence over performance. Constant exposure to competitors’ content can also heighten stress and insecurity.

    My master’s thesis found that social media, and the way athletes use it, influences self-efficacy in combat sport athletes. I found that what athletes see online can disrupt their belief in their own abilities, sometimes more than their actual experience in sport.

    Impact on youth athletes

    My PhD research found that many athletes are unaware of how social media affects their mental game and performance. There’s even less information about how social media impacts youth athletes.

    Elite athletes already face a unique set of pressures: rigorous training schedules, limited leisure time, injury risks, competition pressure and the pursuit of scholarships or team placements. For young athletes, these challenges are layered on top of the developmental process of forming a sense of self. Social media now plays a central role in this development.

    For youth athletes, athletic identity becomes a major part of this process. It shapes how they think, feel, behave and relate to others through their connection to sport.

    But there is a complex relationship between social media and adolescent psychosocial development. Excessive or problematic social media use can negatively impact mental health and well-being, increasing risk of depression, low self-esteem, harassment and burnout.

    Despite these risks, there is limited social media training for athletes, and many are unaware of the effects social media use has on their performance.

    Coaches see the impact

    Since social media is now a constant part of athletes’ lives, understanding how coaches view it is essential. Research shows coaches are often more aware of how social media impacts their athletes’ performance and engagement. Many see it as a growing challenge.

    For my PhD thesis, which was later published as a peer-reviewed paper, I interviewed six high-performance coaches across a range of sports to understand their perspectives of athletes’ social media use.

    Many of the coaches I interviewed expressed concern that social media places too much emphasis on results and encourages constant comparison with others.

    They felt the instant feedback loop introduced too many voices that competed with their own, making it harder for athletes to focus on performance goals and training. Many of the coaches also believed athletes could become overly concerned with their public image and how they are perceived.

    What role should coaches play?

    Current recommendations for coaches recognize that an outright ban of social media and technology use for athletes is outdated and unrealistic. Athletes, especially younger ones, are digital natives.

    Instead, coaches are encouraged to adapt their methods to better align with the generation they are working with. But there aren’t many resources tailored for this purpose.

    What’s needed are tools to help coaches engage with their athletes and help them understand how social media influences their mental performance and well-being. Resources need to go beyond helping coaches use technology to providing them with information on how to communicate with their athletes safely or protect them from liability.

    In addition, trust between coaches and athletes has been strained in some cases by problematic social media-related incidents. For example, one study found that Snapchat has been used by coach perpetrators to sexually abuse their athletes by overcoming internal inhibitions, avoiding external barriers and breaking down victim resistance.

    Rather than focusing on controlling what athletes post on social media, organizations should educate athletes on the way social media might affect them while they are using it. This starts with awareness.

    Navigating the realities of social media

    The American Psychological Association offers general guidelines for recognizing problematic social media use in youth. While these recommendations provide a useful starting point, athletes face a unique set of challenges.

    Unlike their peers, many athletes are encouraged to use social media to brand themselves. Because of this, they need to understand how to balance healthy engagement and harmful overuse.

    At the same time, coaches also need better education. There must be a spectrum between coaches who don’t want anything to do with social media at all and coaches who are overly involved in their athlete’s social media.

    Coaching resources need to be created to address this. They should be accessible, and provide effective and appropriate assistance that aligns with, and supports, individual coaching methods. A one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to be effective.

    Social media is here to stay, and both athletes and coaches need the tools to help them navigate it well.

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

    ref. How social media is changing the game for athletes – https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-is-changing-the-game-for-athletes-258887

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Paul Hamilton, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

    The recent resurgence of Canadian nationalism is a response to explicit threats made by United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to make Canada the 51st American state.

    Canadian flag sales have skyrocketed, informal and formal boycotts of American goods are continuing and Canadians are being urged to stay home and spend their vacation dollars domestically. Even in Québec, pro-Canadian sentiments are evident. Canadian nationalism is back.




    Read more:
    Is Trump’s assault on Canada bringing Québec and the rest of the country closer together?


    Yet only a decade ago, the newly elected Justin Trudeau labelled Canada the first “post-national nation” in an interview with The New York Times. In essence, the prime minister suggested, Canada was moving beyond nationalism to some new phase of social identity. Nationalism, like a step in the launch of a spacecraft, would be jettisoned now that it was a vestigial and outdated feature of Canadian society.

    As we argue in a recently presented paper to be published soon, Canadians are nowhere near either a homogeneous, popularly held identity, nor are they “beyond nationalism” as if it were an outdated hairstyle.

    Instead, Canadian steps toward a united, widely held nationalism continue to be stymied by both substantial constitutional issues (Québec, western alienation, Indigenous aspirations to self-determination) but also by battles over banal symbols of national identity. Canadians are, in the words of journalist Ian Brown, “a unity of contradictions.”

    The importance of symbols

    In his influential book, Banal Nationalism, British social science scholar Michael Billig highlighted the role of symbols like stamps, currency and flags to identify barely noticed transmitters of national consciousness.

    Writing in 1995, at a time of ethnic nationalist resurgence in the former Yugoslavia, Billig contrasted the understated, reserved nationalism of citizens of established states like Canada with the dangerous, passionate expressions of nationalism in the Balkans.

    This genteel nationalism is barely noticed much of the time, but proposals to alter national symbols arouse debate — like during the great Canadian flag debate of the mid-1960s — and expose deep emotional attachments. Canadians, too, are nationalists.

    But they’re also citizens of a liberal democracy where nationalistic narratives compete to define and unite the nation. Societies evolve and generational change can lead to new symbols reflecting changing values. The historical episodes of discontent pertaining to national symbols show how Canadian society has evolved since its drift away from Britain after the Second World War.

    During the flag debate, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said Canada needed a new flag that would present a united nation rather than a confusing amalgamation of different people. Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker, on the other hand, argued Canada should be “all Canadian and all British” during the debate, adding that any Canadian who disagreed should “be denounced.”

    The leaders could not agree, with Diefenbaker opting for something like the status quo and Pearson for a complete redesign that would represent all Canadians, regardless of national heritage. In a 1964 La Presse article on the debate, columnist Guy Cormier crudely voiced Québec’s concerns that Pearson’s handling of the flag debate was an attempt to “artificially inseminate” his agenda on the province. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reported on the debate, declaring that “tinkering with a nation’s flag is sort of like playing volleyball with a hornets nest.”

    Mountie symbolism

    As Canada became increasingly more multicultural in the 1980s, another symbol became the centre of controversy. A Sikh entering the RCMP wanted to be able to wear a turban instead of the traditional Stetson.

    Despite government and RCMP support, public opinion was mixed. Racist lapel pins were sold with the message “Keep the RCMP Canadian” as some argued the old uniform should remain and that new recruits should adapt to it.

    While few Canadians knew much about the design and history of the RCMP uniform, almost all Canadians consider it an iconic representation of Canada. Changes to it represent a threat to some, inclusion for others.

    Changes to the anthem, passport

    Changes to O Canada, the national anthem, have been proposed over the past decades. Recently, a more inclusive version was drafted, changing “in all thy sons command” to “all of us command.”

    Conservative MPs and some television pundits argued the change wasn’t necessary and the anthem doesn’t belong to a political party. Opponents argued that most people aren’t offended by the anthem’s lyrics, the anthem wasn’t broken and was not in need of fixing. Ultimately, the change was made, with great praise from some and vexation from others.

    Removing images of the late Terry Fox in 2023 from the Canadian passport, a document few think about until checking its expiry date before a vacation, caused significant uproar.

    Other images from Canadian history were also removed, but Fox’s removal was most notable since he was someone most Canadians consider the embodiment of a Canadian hero.

    The response to these changes ranged from mild — with those arguing that Canada needs more Terry Fox, not less, — to furious, as some accused Trudeau of being out of touch with Canadians and a “fault finder-in-chief.”

    Far from trivial, these arguments over national symbols reveal how deeply some Canadians are attached to them. The nature of Canadian identity and nationalism will continue to be dated and contested. In that respect, Canadians are no different than the citizens of any other country.

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

    ref. Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-symbols-take-centre-stage-in-debates-about-canadian-nationalism-259847

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karmvir K. Padda, Researcher and PhD Candidate, Sociology, University of Waterloo

    Two years have passed since a 24-year-old former student walked into a gender studies classroom at the University of Waterloo and stabbed the professor and two students.

    The attack left the campus shaken and sparked national outrage. Many saw the attack as a shocking but isolated act of violence. But a close analysis of his 223-word manifesto reveals much more.

    What emerges is a chilling picture of how deep-seated misogyny, disguised as grievance and moral outrage, can escalate ideological violence. Though short, the manifesto is saturated with anti-feminist, conspiratorial rhetoric.

    As a researcher looking at digital extremism and gender-based violence, I’ve analyzed more than 100 manifestos written by people who carried out mass shootings, stabbings, vehicular attacks and other acts of ideologically, politically and religiously motivated violent extremism in Canada, the United States and beyond.

    These attackers may not belong to formal terrorist organizations, but their writings reveal consistent ideological patterns. Among them, one stands out: misogyny.

    Misogyny is the ‘gateway drug’

    The Waterloo case is not unique. In fact, it mirrors a growing number of violent incidents where gender-based hate plays a central role. Reports by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Public Safety Canada show misogynist extremism is rising in Canada. It’s often entangled with white nationalism, anti-LGBTQ+ hate and anti-government sentiment.

    According to political sociologist Yasmin Wong, misogyny now acts as a “gateway drug” to broader extremist ideologies. This is particularly true in digital spaces where hate and grievance are cultivated algorithmically.

    In my analysis of manifestos collected from 1966 to 2025, gender identity-driven violence appeared in nearly 40 per cent of them. These violent beliefs were either the primary or a significant secondary motivation for the attack. This includes direct expressions of hatred toward women, trans and queer people and references to feminist or LGBTQ+ movements.

    ‘Salad bar’extremism

    The Waterloo attacker did not explicitly identify as an “incel” (involuntary celibate), but the language in his manifesto closely echoes those found in incel and broader manosphere discourse. Feminism is portrayed as dangerous, gender studies as ideological indoctrination and universities as battlegrounds in a supposed culture war.

    The Waterloo attacker destroyed a Pride flag during the attack, referred to the professor he targeted as a “Marxist,” and told police he hoped his actions would serve as a “wake-up call.”

    At one point, he praised leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Canadian far-right politician Maxime Bernier as “based Chads.” “Based Chads” is a slang term used in online extremist communities to glorify or refer to dominant and assertive males.

    Alongside anti-feminist messaging, the attacker’s writing echoes common far-right narratives: fear of “cultural Marxism,” disdain for liberal elites, and the belief that violence is necessary to awaken the public. He referenced prior mass attacks, including the 2011 Norway massacre and the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting. These two incidents are frequently celebrated in far-right spaces.

    These references place him within a transnational digital subculture where misogyny, white supremacy and ideological violence are valourized.

    It reflects what researchers described as “salad bar extremism”: a mix-and-match worldview where misogyny is blended with white nationalism, anti-government sentiment and conspiratorial thinking to justify violence.

    Manifestos rationalize violence

    The authors of manifestos are frequently dismissed as “nutters” — demented or socially unstable people.

    But the manifestos are valuable documents for understanding how ideology works. They show how people rationalize violence, where their ideas come from and how they see themselves as political entities. They also reveal the role of digital communities in shaping those beliefs.

    Researchers can use them to map ideological ecosystems and identify patterns. These analyses can inform prevention strategies.

    The Waterloo manifesto is no exception. It draws from a familiar ideological playbook — one that dehumanizes feminists, academics and LGBTQ+ people while portraying violence as both righteous and necessary.

    These are not isolated ideas; they are symptoms of a wider digital ecosystem of online hate and ideological grooming.




    Read more:
    The stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo underscores the dangers of polarizing rhetoric about gender


    Deliberate, ideologically motivated attacks

    While a psychological assessment of the attacker raised questions about a psychotic break, there was no clinical diagnosis of psychosis. His actions — planning the attack, writing and posting a manifesto, selecting a specific target — were deliberate and ideologically motivated.

    Yet the terrorism charge brought against him by federal prosecutors was ultimately dropped. The judge ruled his beliefs were “too scattered and disparate” to constitute a coherent ideology.

    But his manifesto shared language and ideological frameworks recognizable across incel, anti-feminist and far-right communities. The idea that this doesn’t constitute “ideology” reflects how outdated our legal and policy frameworks have become.

    Confronting ongoing danger

    Two years on, we remember the victims of the Waterloo attack. We must also confront the larger danger the attack represents.

    Misogyny is not just a cultural or emotional problem. Instead, it increasingly functions as an ideological gateway, connecting personal grievance with broader calls for violent extremism.

    In this era of rising lone-actor violence, it is one of the most consistent and dangerous drivers of extremism.

    If we continue to treat gender-based hate as peripheral or personal, we will keep misunderstanding the nature of violent radicalization in Canada. We must name this threat and take it seriously, because that’s the only way to prepare for what’s coming next.

    Karmvir K. Padda receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

    ref. I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread – https://theconversation.com/i-analyzed-more-than-100-extremist-manifestos-misogyny-was-the-common-thread-259347

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representatives Norma Torres and Brad Schneider Reintroduce the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

    June 30, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Norma J. Torres (CA-35) and Brad Schneider (IL-10) reintroduced the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act, legislation aimed at curbing illegal gun trafficking and reducing gun violence. The bill would require federally licensed firearms dealers to report the sale of two or more long guns—such as AR-15s or AK-47s—to the same individual within a five-day period.

    In 2022, law enforcement officials reported that the shooter from the Uvalde school shooting– which claimed the lives of 19 children and 2 teachers– purchased two AR platform rifles within a three-day period from a federally authorized dealer. In the United States, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens. Every year, 22,000 children and teens are shot and killed or wounded, and approximately 3 million are exposed to gun violence. In 2024 alone, there were  503 mass shootings, resulting in more than 16,725 deaths and 31,646 injuries. 

    “Just this month, I sat with young students in my district— who should be thinking about school, friends, and their futures—but instead, are advocating for a call to action against gun violence,” said Congresswoman Norma Torres. “Their voices, stories and their courage stay with me every day. This bill is a commonsense step to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America. That is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. Yet, Republicans in Congress continue to block meaningful reforms, and the Trump Administration is making it easier for dangerous individuals to access deadly weapons. I refuse to stand by as our communities suffer and families are torn apart. I’ll keep fighting with everything I have to close deadly loopholes, strengthen background checks, and finally ban assault weapons.”

    Mass shootings do not have to be inevitable—commonsense policies like requiring a report on the sale of two or more long guns in a 5-day period will help prevent tragedies and save lives,” said Rep. Schneider. “I’m proud to join Rep. Torres to introduce this bill and help address our senseless epidemic of mass shootings.”

    The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is supported by numerous gun safety and public interest organizations, including: March for Our Lives, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, National Education Association, and Amnesty International. 

    “There’s nothing unpredictable about gun violence in this country. When assault-style rifles are bought in bulk with no oversight, tragedy is often just days away. Young people have been sounding the alarm, and this bill answers that call with real, preventative action. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is common sense. We thank Reps. Torres and Schneider for stepping up, and we condemn anyone who stands in the way. A vote against this bill isn’t about gun rights. It’s a choice to look away while innocent people are murdered.” Jackie Corin, Executive Director of March For Our Lives

    “When individuals purchase multiple firearms in quick succession, it is often a sign of tragedy to come. Bulk firearms purchases are a strong indicator of gun trafficking or that guns will be used in criminal activity. It is essential that we require licensed gun dealers to report sales of multiple firearms, not just handguns, so we can better identify potential gun trafficking and cut off the supply of firearms that fuel transnational cartels and violence in our communities. Brady applauds Congresswoman Torres for introducing the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act and for her continued commitment to freeing America from gun violence.” Mark Collins, Director of Federal Policy, Brady: United Against Gun Violence

    “Requiring gun dealers to report bulk purchases of long guns is a commonsense step to help prevent gun trafficking and mass shootings. In many instances, individuals intent on causing harm have purchased multiple firearms within days of committing an attack. This bill provides law enforcement with a critical tool to identify patterns of suspicious activity and intervene before tragedy strikes. We applaud Congresswoman Torres for her leadership in modernizing how we detect and respond to potential threats.”  Vanessa Gonzalez, Vice President of Government & Political Affairs at GIFFORDS

    One of the most glaring red flags for a mass shooting is someone stockpiling semi-automatic weapons in a matter of days — but too often, this flag goes unnoticed,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We applaud Congresswoman Torres for introducing common-sense legislation to require gun dealers to speak up when they notice a seller stocking up on weapons of war.”

    Currently, a federal firearms licensee (e.g., a gun dealer) must report multiple sales or dispositions of pistols or revolvers to the same person within five business days- however, this requirement excludes reporting requirements for long guns, which include assault style rifles and shotguns. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act changes the requirement so federal firearms licensees must report multiple sales or dispositions of all firearms to the same person within five business days.

    Bill text

    The legislation is also cosponsored by Representatives: Barragán (CA-44), Cleaver (MO-5), DeGette (CO-01), Foushee (NC-04), García (IL-04), Goldman (NY-10), Johnson (GA-04), Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Lynch (MA-08), Neguse (CO-02), Norton (DC), Peters (CA-50), Pettersen (CO-07), Scanlon (PA-05), Schakowsky (IL-09), Smith (WA-09), Stansbury (NM-01), Swalwell (CA-14), Torres (NY-15), Vargas (CA-52), Velázquez (NY-07). 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Coast Guard Cutter Kimball holds change of command ceremony

    Source: United States Coast Guard

     

    06/30/2025 06:43 PM EDT

    HONOLULU — The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Kimball (WMSL 756) held a change of command ceremony, Friday, in Honolulu. Vice Adm. Andrew Tiongson, commander of U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area, presided over the ceremony in which Capt. Craig Allen relieved Capt. Robert Kinsey as Kimball’s commanding officer.

    For breaking news follow us on twitter @USCGHawaiiPac

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: $HAREHOLDER ALERT: Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde Investigates the Merger of Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE: GNTY)

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the “M&A Class Action Firm”), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE: GNTY) related to its sale to Glacier Bancorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Guaranty shareholders will receive 1.0000 share of Glacier common stock for each share of Guaranty (subject to certain adjustments). Is it a fair deal?

    Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

    NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:

    1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
    2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders?
    3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

    About Monteverde & Associates PC

    Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

    Contact:
    Juan Monteverde, Esq.
    MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
    The Empire State Building
    350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
    New York, NY 10118
    United States of America
    jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
    Tel: (212) 971-1341

    Attorney Advertising. (C) 2025 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Republicans Are Ripping People Off, Plunging Country Into Energy Crisis To Cut Taxes For Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – During a debate on the Republican tax bill, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) condemned the bill’s provisions to gut clean energy which will raise people’s energy bills by more than a hundred dollars starting next year and make blackouts and power outages more common across the country.

    “This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages,” said Senator Schatz. “And for what? It’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.”

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    There are a lot of people in this chamber and across the country who, on a non-ideological basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can invest with certainty and predictability. So let’s look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of this bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade.

    Now, there was a time, and I lived through it as a politician, there was a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue for that climate action because it is a planetary emergency and there were tradeoffs. And people on the other side said, “look, as we try to take action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can’t create shortages, we can’t increase prices, we can’t impede economic progress.” All that has flipped.

    This bill will create shortages. This bill will impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices. The 500GW less energy in the next decade is pretty much exactly the amount of energy that we’re going to need to meet rising demand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.

    And you don’t have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist. And I love clean energy, and I’m an environmentalist. But you don’t have to care about the climate. I think you should. You don’t have to care about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of supply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in decades, largely not exclusively, but largely because of AI data centers. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is with wind and solar, not oil and gas, even nuclear and geothermal are going to take a while.

    That is not just a political talking point or a preference of mine. It’s just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a years-long backlog. It’s also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last year came from solar and storage. It’s growing, it’s cheap, it works. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline waiting to be hooked up.

    So the idea that we’re going to kill the only energy that can be brought online in the short run, the very same week that half the country was meeting, melting in a record heat wave which left tens of thousands without power is beyond absurd.

    Let’s talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically, it creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in order to claim the clean energy tax credits. Remember, these clean energy tax cuts are federal law. They’re on the books. So when you have a federal statute, it is not unreasonable as an investor to say, look, I got this tax credit. I’m going to get X number, X percent back for my initial investment. And you do the pro forma, you do the underwriting. And you figure out that the thing pencils out. And now what they’re saying is that you got to be operational in 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or tried to do an extension – nothing gets built in 60 days. Certainly not a clean energy project, and it has to be placed in service. What does placed in service mean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have to have a power purchase agreement through your public service commission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in place in the next 60 days after enactment, or you get nothing.

    So imagine you’re a company investing in a solar battery storage project. You’ve already put money down, you’ve secured land and a power purchase agreement, and you’re working on permits. And when you started the project, the tax code said you could claim a credit to cover the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you’re out of luck. On average, a project takes four years to go through the full process. So even if you’ve already started that progress, you now have very, very little time to get it done. We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. And so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is going to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable proposition is the most dangerous part of this. I don’t know that we’ve ever, through federal law, made a big subsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry. And then halfway through that process, said, never mind. We didn’t mean that. You’re stuck.

    According to the Edison Electric Institute. And by the way, I can guarantee you this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever quote the Edison Electric Institute. That’ll cost people, not companies, people, ratepayers $60 billion in this decade alone. Your electric bills are about to go up. A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way. It is really unclear in the current version of the bill what the renewable energy industry even looks like, if it were passed today.

    An owner of a solar company in Montana, worried that the credits disappearing would force them to lay off half of his workers. He says, “Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase somehow. The practical energy needs are undeniable, so we can get past our disagreements and about phraseology. We realize that electrons, watts, amps, it’s all cheaper.” A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said, “I don’t look at what we do as green or blue or red. An electron doesn’t have a color.” And that’s the point. Electrons don’t have color. Wanting cheap, abundant energy is not woke. Wanting a livable planet for today and for future generations is not radical and wanting reliable power and to avoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project. But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the states that have benefited the most from these investments are Republican states.

    According to estimates, nearly three quarters of clean energy manufacturing facilities are located in Republican states. It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means Republicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican bill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their homes and businesses. Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs, and at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand that even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.

    Here’s a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year, “As our conference has long believed, and all of the above energy approach combined with a robust, advanced manufacturing sector will help support the United States position as a global energy leader. Countless American companies are utilizing sector wide energy tax credits, many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable sources alike.” And it goes on, “As energy demand continues to skyrocket. Any modifications that inhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risks sparking an energy crisis risks sparking an energy crisis.” 21 House Republicans are worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress. It goes on. “This is especially true for energy credits with direct pass through benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would increase utility bills the very next day – would increase utility bills the very next day.”

    This is not me, progressive Senator from the state of Hawai‘i, who has made a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House Republicans saying, like, “we’re going to create a crisis here. Maybe we shouldn’t pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us. If we’re all out here talking about all of the above. Why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?” Just because someone wants a talking point? People are literally going to lose their jobs immediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very challenging place to make major investments in, immediately upon enactment. The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment, and prices will go up pretty much right away as well.

    A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote, “For the first time, state and local governments, as well as essential nonprofit community organizations such as houses of worship, hospitals and schools, can access the same clean energy tax credits as the private sector through elective pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling infrastructure, and charging stations for local government fleets. After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1200 organizations, including 500 state and local governments are already accessing these incentives. We are excited about these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty in our communities as it would prevent us from accessing those important benefits.”

    You know, I grew up to understand Republicans were for avoiding unintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too quickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people could rely upon. This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself as energy policy. And what’s going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs and pay tons more for electricity.

    The building trades unions called this bill “the biggest job killing bill in the history of this country.”  And they go on. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.” I’ve been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our friends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends and labor about how important that project was to them, and how it was in tension with some of our climate goals.

    But listen to what they say. It is the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey, or Sheldon Whitehouse, or Martin Heinrich, or Rep Ocasio-Cortez, or any climate advocate. This is the building trades, and they’re saying this is the biggest job killer, perhaps, perhaps in American history. We actually don’t have to do this.

    The impetus behind this bill was essentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from expiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that’s what happens. And we were there for our own version of this, our own BBB, our own Build Back Better. And everybody in your party piles on with something new. And then the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass, because everybody’s got their hobbyhorse and somebody’s hobbyhorse is not just to have an all of the above energy strategy, but to go out of your way to kill clean energy.  It doesn’t matter that it’s going to raise prices. It doesn’t matter that it’s going to kill jobs.

    People at all levels, in the public and private sectors across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, which is this is a bad bill for regular people, for the economy and for the planet. One of the great things about our climate Bill was that it made what was good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy become became eminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to consumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn’t like the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal political, economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.

    And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct. But we’ve paved a new path, and we decided, look, there’s enough technology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that we can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower prices, and we can do it in such a way that blue states and red states, urban rural, suburban all benefit. Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it will hurt their constituents. And in doing so, we’re virtually guaranteeing China’s dominance in clean energy for decades to come. Because if you’re a China, you cannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly forfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the future because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the pre-industrial age.

    This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages. And for what? Partially, it’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires. But even kicking more than 16 million people off of health care coverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt was not enough.

    People voted for Donald Trump for all sorts of reasons, but no one voted for higher energy bills. No one voted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air and water. No one, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or independent, wants that. I want to be clear this fight is far from over. This fight over this bill is far from over.

    But even if this bill passes, it will set us back. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote, and that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous administration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and made changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has setbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.

    States like Hawai‘i will continue to do everything that they can to protect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without us, because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply not an option. But make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in the years and decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Breast Cancer Risk in Younger Women May Be Influenced by Hormone Therapy

    Source: US Department of Health and Human Services – 3

    Scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have found that two common types of hormone therapy may alter breast cancer risk in women before age 55. Researchers discovered that women treated with unopposed estrogen hormone therapy (E-HT) were less likely to develop the disease than those who did not use hormone therapy. They also found that women treated with estrogen plus progestin hormone therapy (EP-HT) were more likely to develop breast cancer than women who did not use hormone therapy. Together, these results could help to guide clinical recommendations for hormone therapy use among younger women.
    The two hormone therapies analyzed in the study are often used to manage symptoms related to menopause or following hysterectomy (removal of uterus) or oophorectomy (removal of one or both ovaries). Unopposed estrogen therapy is recommended only for women who have had a hysterectomy because of its known association with uterine cancer risk.
    “Hormone therapy can greatly improve the quality of life for women experiencing severe menopausal symptoms or those who have had surgeries that affect their hormone levels,” said lead author Katie O’Brien, Ph.D., of NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). “Our study provides greater understanding of the risks associated with different types of hormone therapy, which we hope will help patients and their doctors develop more informed treatment plans.”
    The researchers conducted a large-scale analysis that included data from more than 459,000 women under 55 years old across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Women who used E-HT had a 14% reduction in breast cancer incidence compared to those who never used hormone therapy. Notably, this protective effect was more pronounced in women who started E-HT at younger ages or who used it longer. In contrast, women using EP-HT experienced a 10% higher rate of breast cancer compared to non-users, with an 18% higher rate seen among women using EP-HT for more than two years relative to those who never used the therapy.
    According to the authors, this suggests that for EP-HT users, the cumulative risk of breast cancer before age 55 could be about 4.5%, compared with a 4.1% risk for women who never used hormone therapy and a 3.6% risk for those who used E-HT. Further, the association between EP-HT and breast cancer was particularly elevated among women who had not undergone hysterectomy or oophorectomy. That highlights the importance of considering gynecological surgery status when evaluating the risks of starting hormone therapy, the researchers noted.
    “These findings underscore the need for personalized medical advice when considering hormone therapy,” said NIEHS scientist and senior author Dale Sandler, Ph.D. “Women and their health care providers should weigh the benefits of symptom relief against the potential risks associated with hormone therapy, especially EP-HT. For women with an intact uterus and ovaries, the increased risk of breast cancer with EP-HT should prompt careful deliberation.”
    The authors noted that their study is consistent with previous large studies that documented similar associations between hormone therapy and breast cancer risk among older and postmenopausal women. This new study extends those findings to younger women, providing essential evidence to help guide decision-making for women as they go through menopause.
    Reference: O’Brien KM, et al. 2025. Hormone therapy use and young-onset breast cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohorts included in the Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group. Lancet Oncol 26: 911–23.

    Previous National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences News Release
    April 16, 2024 Microplastics, Algal Blooms, Seafood Safety Are Public Health Concerns Addressed by New Oceans and Human Health Centers April 16, 2024

    See all News Releases

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Department of Defense agrees: it’s time for Trump’s militarization of Los Angeles to end

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

    What you need to know: As President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles continues to hamstring crucial firefighting resources in California, new reporting indicates top military officials are asking the Secretary of Defense to return troops to firefighting operations as Governor Newsom has urged.

    SACRAMENTO – According to new reporting by the Associated Press, the top military commander overseeing troops illegally deployed to Los Angeles is asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to return 200 of those troops to firefighting operations – echoing Governor Gavin Newsom’s continued pleas. 

    With fires popping up across the state and red flag conditions in the forecast, the California National Guard’s (CalGuard) critical firefighting crews – known as Task Force Rattlesnake – are operating at just 40% capacity. Eight of 14 teams have been diverted to Los Angeles as part of President Trump’s illegal – and highly inefficient – federalization of the Guard. 

    We’re glad to see the top military commander overseeing Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles agree: it’s time to pull back National Guard troops and get them back to their critical firefighting duties. President Trump: listen to your military leaders, and stop the political theater.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Joint Task Force Rattlesnake is made up of over 300 California National Guard (CalGuard) members, who work at the direction of CAL FIRE to help fight and prevent fires. The President’s illegal federalization of the Guard has already impacted firefighting efforts, leaving CAL FIRE to step in to fill the gaps left by the Guard’s understaffing. 

    The National Guard impact is on top of the Trump administration’s dangerous cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which also threatens the safety of communities across the state. The U.S. Forest Service has lost 10% of all positions and 25% of positions outside of direct wildfire response – both of which are likely to impact wildfire response this year. 

    President Trump’s unlawful deployment has also slashed California’s National Guard fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32% — undermining public safety and weakening border fentanyl seizure operations.

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

    Despite the strain caused by President Trump, California stands ready to protect communities. As part of the state’s ongoing investment in wildfire resilience and emergency response, CAL FIRE has significantly expanded its workforce over the past five years by adding an average of 1,800 full-time and 600 seasonal positions annually – nearly double that from the previous administration. Over the next four years and beyond, CAL FIRE will be hiring thousands of additional firefighters, natural resource professionals, and support personnel to meet the state’s growing demands.

    This builds on consecutive years of intensive and focused work by California to confront the severe ongoing risk of catastrophic wildfires, and Governor Newsom’s emergency proclamation signed in March to fast-track forest and vegetation management projects throughout the state. Additionally, to bolster the state’s ability to respond to fires, Governor Newsom recently announced that the state’s second C-130 Hercules airtanker is ready for firefighting operations, adding to the largest aerial firefighting fleet in the world. 

    New, bold moves to streamline state-level regulatory processes builds long-term efforts already underway in California to increase wildfire response and forest management in the face of a hotter, drier climate. A full list of California’s progress on wildfire resilience is available here.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom is issuing an extension to his executive order making it easier for survivors of the LA firestorms to retain temporary shelter. The order helps continue to boost temporary housing supply by extending the amount of time…

    News What you need to know: Californians are urged to practice common sense and safety when using fireworks to celebrate this Fourth of July. People who resort to using illegal fireworks will be held accountable. SACRAMENTO – With Fourth of July celebrations set to go…

    News ✅ CUMPLIDO: Reducción de impuestos para jubilados militares ✅ CUMPLIDO: Pre-kinder universal para todos ✅ CUMPLIDO: Ampliación de programas antes y después de clases y cursos de verano ✅ CUMPLIDO: Alimentación escolar gratuita para todos los niños ✅ CUMPLIDO:…

    MIL OSI USA News