# data[].attributes.body
Should terminally ill patients have a right to end their life? (Euthanasia)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mary E. White, an environmental scientist, who died in Bundanoon, Australia, in early August. Her daughter, Barbara Eckersley, has been charged with her murder in a case that has stirred debate about euthanasia. Credit Credit Brett Dolsen

BUNDANOON, Australia - Even into her 80s, Mary E. White thrived on the expanse of Australian rain forest she had made her home, and she told friends of ambitious plans: She was going to write her autobiography, and there were two other books she wanted to finish.

But dementia robbed her of vigor. Ms. White, an accomplished scientist who gained prominence for warnings of desert encroachment and overpopulation, soon moved into a nursing home closer to her family but far from her old home. She could not communicate, friends said, and did not recognize visitors.

Then, one evening this month, Ms. White was found dead. She was 92. Several days later, her daughter was charged with murdering her.

The accusations have stunned people who knew Ms. White and her family, as well as Bundanoon, the small town where neighbors remembered an attentive daughter who would take her mother to the salon for haircuts and stop in the cafe across the street. Many insist that whatever happened must have been motivated by compassion and love.

"It would have been done as an act of mercy," said Jenny Goldie, a friend who had known Ms. White for 30 years. "There wouldn't have been any malice attached to it at all."

The case has saddened and confused Ms. White's friends. But it has also tapped into the broader debate in Australia over euthanasia and assisted dying, which has been renewed in recent weeks as Parliament considered a proposal to overturn a two-decade-old ban on the practice in the nation's territories.

The legislation ultimately failed, but last year, the state of Victoria became the first in Australia to legalize assisted dying, allowing someone with an incurable illness and limited life expectancy to obtain a dose of a lethal drug, and other states are considering their own legislation. (The Victoria law requires that a patient be mentally sound enough to make the request on his or her own, preventing relatives or caretakers from applying on an ill person's behalf.)

No such allowance exists in New South Wales, where Bundanoon sits a two-hour drive southwest of Sydney; an assisted dying bill was rejected last year.

Some have viewed Ms. White's case as an example of why that conversation must continue.

[Sign up for the Australia Letter to get news, conversation starters and local recommendations in your inbox each week.]

It has already stirred a delicate discussion about the toll of aging and illness, as well as the impact of watching a family member's decline. It is a subject that especially resonates in Bundanoon, where the population tends to skew older. (The median age, according to census figures, is 56.)

Image

Australian lawmakers reacting last year in the state of Victoria's Parliament after a bill legalizing assisted dying was enacted. Credit Scott Barbour/Getty Images

Just over 2,700 people live in Bundy, as Bundanoon is known. It's a rural outpost set back on country roads winding through vast golden fields specked with horses and sheep. The last time the town attracted widespread notice was nearly a decade ago, when residents voted to ban the sale of bottled water.

Violence of any kind is rare. "Stuff like that never happens in Bundy," said Olivia Cole, who has lived here for much of her life, referring to the murder charge that has rattled the community. "Nothing happens. No crime happens."

Some have acknowledged that they could recognize themselves and their parents in Ms. White's case. The authorities have indicated that the family had asked at her nursing home about euthanasia, and many here suspect that as Ms. White's health declined, her daughter, Barbara Eckersley, must have felt compelled to intervene.
[Read more: How another Australian scientist, David Goodall, fought to die on his own terms at 104 years old.]
"It stopped the mother's suffering," said Peter Giannakos, who has owned the Primula Cafe and Restaurant on the town's main street for 25 years.

Some of his customers said such an act could be justifiable. He considered his own mother-in-law, who is 96 and infirm, and said he was less certain.

"I can't do it," he said. "I can't do it."

Ms. White, who was found dead at the nursing home, was killed on the evening of Aug. 5, the police said, and Ms. Eckersley was arrested on Aug. 8. Local news reports said a lethal combination of medications had caused Ms. White's death.

Ms. Eckersley, 66, has been released on bail. Through her lawyer, she declined to comment, as did other family members. Friends said the two women had been close. Among other things, they shared an interest in science.

Ms. White, who did not often discuss her religious beliefs with friends, described having a spiritual connection with nature, which was her life's work.

She was born in southern Africa, in what is now Zimbabwe, and she studied paleobotany at the University of Capetown. She moved with her husband, a geologist, and their children to Australia in 1955.

While working as a research associate for the Australian Museum in Sydney, she assembled a plant fossil collection that included 12,000 specimens. Sometimes when her husband was sent to Northern Australia for government work he would send home drums filled with fossils for Ms. White to study.

Ms. White gained prominence for her writing on the environment and was vital well into her 80s before developing dementia. Credit Brett Dolsen

Over time, her writing evolved from largely academic texts to books, with titles like "Listen ... Our Land is Crying" and "Running Down: Water in a Changing Land," that denounced unsustainable land and water use in Australia and the threats posed by a booming population.

These were the works that became her legacy. "Mary White's contribution to our understanding of the natural cycles that drive all life on the planet and of our human impact on those processes is unsurpassed," Chrissie Goldrick, the editor in chief of Australian Geographic, said in a statement.

In 2003, Ms. White bought the sprawling property called Falls Forest, a four-hour drive up the coast from Sydney. Conservationists praised her for sparing some 200 acres of forest and preserving its biodiversity and for opening it to the public. She identified and labeled the plants along pathways around the property. Platypus were sometimes spotted in the creek near the house, where wallabies and eastern gray kangaroos routinely hopped by.

"It was Mary's concern that we were losing too many of these ancient forests," said Brett Dolsen, a photographer who befriended Ms. White and made a short documentary film about her. "Mary's work will never be forgotten in scientific and educational fields," he said, describing much of her work as pioneering. "Her message to humanity is what she lived for in protecting our planet."

Mr. Dolsen spent much time with Ms. White at Falls Forest, often sitting with her on the veranda, where she would take the cover off her parrot's cage, wishing the bird a good morning and insisting Mr. Dolsen do the same.

He was astonished by her energy. At 88, he said, she still ran the property, with its conference center and villas for guests. But he learned that her increasingly methodical approach to life was a way of navigating her dementia.

"Mary had forewarned me that her memory was failing," he said, "and that there were certain protocols I would need to know, including our arrangements and times for meeting."

By the time she left the property a few years ago and moved to Bundanoon, where her daughter lives, the disease had accelerated considerably. Ms. Goldie said that Ms. White's family had told her that she was essentially incapacitated. "She was the diametric opposite of what she had been before," Ms. Goldie said.

Ms. Goldie, who had gotten to know Ms. White through their involvement in environmental advocacy, had visited Ms. Eckersley's home about a week before Ms. White died. Ms. Goldie said she sensed tension.

"No smiling," she said. "No laughter in the house."

She recognized the strain Ms. Eckersley was under. She was reminded of the anguish she faced as her mother's health declined. It wasn't clear if prosecutors pursuing the murder charge would take such issues into account, but they had not yet suggested any ulterior motive in Ms. White's death.

"It's just very hard when you have to sort of encounter it every day," Ms. Goldie said. "They knew I understood and I think they appreciated that. But I don't think I understood how desperate Barbara must have been."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A9 of the New York edition with the headline: An Act of Murder or Mercy? A Scientist's Death Rivets Australians. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Was a Scientist's Death Murder or an 'Act of Mercy'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BUNDANOON, Australia - Even into her 80s, Mary E. White thrived on the expanse of Australian rain forest she had made her home, and she told friends of ambitious plans: She was going to write her autobiography, and there were two other books she wanted to finish. But dementia robbed her of vigor.

# data[].attributes.body
Should we be allowed to design our unborn babies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Chinese scientist who was jailed for creating the world's first gene-edited babies has said he feels "huge unease" over their future and said they should be allowed to continue living with their families undisturbed.

He Jiankui was jailed for three years in 2019 after performing "one of the most controversial acts in modern scientific history", said The Independent. The controversial scientist used cutting-edge Crispr technology to alter the genes of twin girls before they were born, in the hope they would be born immune to HIV.

Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Jiankui said the children he had genetically altered - twin girls called Lulu and Nana, and a third child born a year later known as Amy - are living "normal, peaceful and undisturbed" lives with their families. Asked by the newspaper whether he worried about their futures he said: "You will have high expectations of them, but you also have huge unease."

Jiankui told the paper that health insurance companies were unwilling to cover the children once they discovered their genes had been altered, and so he now hopes to open a charitable foundation for the children to cover any unexpected health-related expenses.

Jiankui's efforts earned him acclaim among some in the scientific community, but the majority of the medical establishment and, later, the Chinese government, condemned his actions as deeply unethical, and he was jailed for three years after he was found guilty of illegal medical practices.

Many fears stemmed from the implications of manipulating human genes "that could potentially be inherited and passed down through future generations, raising dystopian fears of re-engineering the human race", said The Times. But some researchers believe the Crispr technology, which allows scientists to edit DNA "far more easily than was previously possible", will eventually "revolutionise the prevention and treatment of diseases and conditions including cancer", added the paper.

The jailed scientist was released from prison in April 2022, and in November launched his own laboratory in Beijing, predicting an imminent "golden decade for gene therapies". He is scheduled to give talks and visits at a number of acclaimed universities, including a scheduled visit to Oxford University next month to discuss the use of Crispr gene-editing technology in reproductive medicine.

1. Pro: may prevent disease

Since many diseases are caused by a single genetic mutation, those in favour ask why we shouldn't edit the DNA of an embryo or the sperm and egg to remove the mutation entirely. "In effect this would remove a fault from humanity forever," said Science editor Tom Whipple in The Times. John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester told the MIT Technology Review: "The human genome is not perfect. It's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."

2. Con: open to misuse

There is the possibility that people will use gene-editing technology for "enhancements", rather than fighting disease, American TV host John Oliver said on his show Last Week Tonight, in 2018. "The more control people have over the ability to design their children, the bigger the moral questions that raises - up to and including, who decides what constitutes a genetic problem that needs to be 'fixed'?"

3. Pro: encourages regulation

Those in favour argue that these scientific advances can be regulated to avert potential doomsday scenarios. "I still think you can try to regulate the technology," Arthur Caplan, founding head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University, told USA Today. "It would be nice if we had an international group; set out some rules. It would be great if the scientific community - with religious and ethics and legal leaders - would set up some rules for how to operate. It would be nice if journal editors would say, 'We're not publishing anything unless these rules are followed.'"

In the aftermath of Jiankui's gene-editing experiment, much has changed, said Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, the organiser of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing which is due to be held at the Francis Crick Institute next month. "We will be discussing what has happened to the three children whose physiology he may have altered by genome editing," Lovell-Badge told The Guardian. "We will also have presentations about the changes that have occurred in China in terms of the law and the ethics governing gene editing. There have clearly been quite substantial changes - for the good."

4. Con: many unknowns

Doctors say that just because we can change a gene does not mean we know what that change will do. "Most diseases are not caused by a single gene but many. Changing lots of genes could have lots of effects elsewhere," reports The Times.

While most scientists and medical ethicists believe gene editing may one day be able to improve the lives of someone with a life-altering disease, they "recoil in horror at the concept of editing the genome of a human embryo" as changes to genes can be passed down through generations of human beings, said Phys.org.

"We do not know enough about human biology to make genetic engineering changes on behalf of the unborn," said Dr John Leonard, president and CEO of Intellia Therapeutics, who said that almost all conditions which could benefit from gene editing could also be treated or prevented in another way. He also raised issues of consent, noting that the unborn cannot "agree to have these procedures done to them."

5. Pro: babies could help humanity

In the US, a poll found that 83% of people thought genetic modification to make a baby more intelligent would be "taking medical advances too far", according to MIT Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. However, proponents of genetic engineering argue that a higher IQ is exactly what we should be considering. Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher best known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, wrote in a 2013 paper that even a small number of "super-enhanced" individuals could "change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use".

6. Con: only for the rich

Any ethical debate "will also naturally run against practicalities like funding", says The Independent. Many patients are subject already to a postcode lottery in accessing fertility treatment based on their local NHS funding, and "gene editing could initially be out of reach for all but the richest", adds the newspaper. Acknowledging this problem, panel chair Professor Yeung said that if funding inequalities "were to exacerbate social injustice, in our view that would not be an ethical approach".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Controversial scientist says he feels "unease" about the future of children whose genes he edited as embryos

# data[].attributes.body
Should athletes be allowed during games to silently protest against injustices? (like taking a knee, raising a fist, wearing a pin, etc).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World Athletics chief Sebastian Coe said on Thursday he believes athletes should have the right to make gestures of political protest during the Olympic Games, contrary to official International Olympic Committee (IOC) policy.

Coe, a vocal supporter of athletes' right to protest, made his comment during a tour of the National Stadium in Tokyo, newly built for the 2020 summer Olympic Games now scheduled to be held in the city next year.

Against the backdrop of the Black Lives Matter movement, calls have increased this year for a change to Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which bans any form political protest during the Games.

"I have been very clear; if an athlete wishes to take a knee on a podium, then I am supportive of that," said Coe. "Athletes are a part of the world and they want to reflect the world they live in. For me, that is perfectly acceptable."

Earlier this year, the IOC said it was opening dialogue with athletes on the issue.

Thursday marked the first time Coe has visited the stadium, due to host opening and closing ceremonies as well as athletics events, since it was completed last December.

In March, the IOC and the Japanese government decided to postpone the Games until next year due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Coe, who is meeting Tokyo 2020 and local government officials later on Thursday, said his team was confident that the Games can be held safely next year.

World Athletics has also sent a team to the northern Japanese city of Sapporo, which will host the marathon and race walking events, to aid organizers in developing COVID-19 precautions.

"This isn't about coming for any assurances," Coe stressed.

"It is to restate our commitment to working very closely with the organizing committee here to share our learnings... we are in complete collaboration."

"There may have to be some adaptations, there may have to be some differences, but I am absolutely convinced that even under those circumstances it will still be a fantastic Games."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OLYMPICS/ Athletes should be allowed to protest during Games--Coe | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World Athletics chief Sebastian Coe said on Thursday he believes athletes should have the right to make gestures of political protest during the Olympic Games, contrary to official International Olympic Committee (IOC) policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Should there be an age limit on driving?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part 1 of a two-part series on making decisions about driving as we age. Read Part 2 here.
When my grandmother repeatedly clipped the mailbox backing out of her driveway, she always had a ready explanation: "the sun was in my eyes" or "your grandfather distracted me." Our family knew we needed to take action. But no one wanted to be the one to ask her to stop driving. She was fiercely independent, didn't agree that her driving was a problem, and didn't appreciate our concerns.

Maybe there's a similar story unfolding in your family. Or maybe you're starting to wonder about your own skills. As part one in a two-part series, this post aims to help people understand red flags to watch for, and why driving abilities change as people age. It also describes a few ways to improve impaired driving, and challenges to navigate.

A second post will address ways to strike a balance that respects dignity - and safety - while providing action plans for older drivers and their families.

How safe are older drivers on the road?

Unsafe drivers can be any age, particularly when drinking is involved. But fatal traffic accidents have risen in both young drivers and older drivers, according to data from the National Safety Council:

While younger drivers may be inexperienced or more likely to be distracted or reckless, older drivers often overestimate their driving abilities. That may be one reason many unsafe older drivers continue to drive despite failing driving skills.

Per mile driven, the rate of motor vehicle accidents is higher for drivers ages 80 and older than for almost every other age group, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Only the youngest drivers have higher rates. And the rate of fatal motor vehicle accidents per mile driven is higher for drivers aged 85 and older than for every other age group.

These statistics reflect the reality that an older driver may not be the only one injured or killed in a crash - occupants in one or more vehicles may be, too. And then there are pedestrians and cyclists at risk.

Clearly, the stakes are high when any unsafe driver is on the road. For older drivers with waning driving skills, it's important to recognize the problem and understand why it's happening. The following four steps are a good start.

1. Seeing any red flags?

As people get older, driving skills may decline so slowly that it's not obvious worrisome changes are happening. Even when mishaps and near-misses occur, there are so many possible contributors - especially other drivers - that it may not be clear that the older driver was at fault.

Red flags that might mean an older person is an unsafe driver include:

concerned comments from family or friends

reluctance of others to ride with them

input from other drivers (why is everyone honking at me?) or traffic authorities (why am I getting all these traffic tickets?)

getting lost on familiar roads

consistently driving too slowly or too fast

unexplained dents or scratches appearing on the car

frequent accidents or near-misses.

2. Why do driving skills tend to wane with age?

While people of advanced age can safely drive (and many do!), driving skills may wane due to:

medical conditions, such as arthritis, neuropathy, or dementia

medications, such as sedatives or certain antidepressants

age-related changes in reaction time

trouble with vision or hearing

other physical changes related to aging, such as less flexibility or strength

difficulty processing rapidly changing information. For example, an older driver may be more likely than a younger driver to accidentally press the gas pedal instead of the brake when needing to stop suddenly.

3. What can - and can't - be reversed to improve driving?

Some changes that impair driving can be reversed or a workaround can be found. For example, if driving is impaired due to cataracts, cataract surgery can restore vision and improve driving. If night driving is difficult, it's best to drive only during the day. If memory problems are starting to arise, it may still be possible to drive safely in more limited circumstances.

Driving problems due to advanced dementia or a major stroke affecting judgment and physical skills are much less likely to improve.

4. Accept that conversations about not driving are challenging

If there is no simple way to reverse or work around declining driving skills, accept that there will be many challenges to navigate, whether you're the older driver or a family member.

Challenges facing the driver:

It's not easy to acknowledge declining function. Driving impairment is an unsettling milestone, an indication that the future may include further loss of abilities.

It can feel unnecessary and unreasonable. Most older folks facing a decision about whether it's safe to continue driving were good drivers not so long ago. They may still see themselves as competent drivers, and see efforts to restrict their driving as overly cautious or demeaning.

Denial and defensiveness are common. Even when all the signs are there, it may be tempting for a poor driver to deflect blame (for example, blaming other drivers).

Not driving is a loss of independence. Sure, there are other ways to get around and nondrivers can certainly be independent. But few alternatives rival the independence that comes with being able to drive yourself. And, depending on where you live, public transportation or other alternatives to driving may be limited.

Challenges facing the family:

Often, the older driver doesn't share their family's concerns about driving safety. This can lead to arguments, confrontation, and resentment.

The safety of others is at stake. The older driver with waning skills may endanger many people besides themselves: passengers in their care, other drivers and their passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

It's hard to know when the time is right. Speaking up too soon may lead to unnecessary restrictions on a loved one's favored means of transportation, not to mention family strife. Waiting too long can lead to avoidable tragedy.

Finding a path forward

As for my grandmother, none of us knew what to say. Should we try to get her to agree to stop driving entirely or let her ease into the idea over time? Maybe she could stop driving at night or limit her driving to short distances. Should we bring it to the attention of her doctor and let them direct the next steps? Or should we take an even harder step and report her to the authorities?

If you're asking similar questions - or if you're starting to wonder about your own driving abilities - you may feel strongly that it's important to respect individual preferences, dignity, and independence. Yet you also want to protect everyone from harm.

What are the best ways to strike a balance? Can you test and improve how an older driver is doing behind the wheel? Can you navigate tough conversations in ways that allow room for both independence and safety? These are the subjects to be tackled in Part 2.

About the Author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A tough question: When should an older driver stop driving? - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Navigating whether or when an older person should limit or stop driving is tricky. Whether these concerns are about a family member or yourself, it's helpful to be aware of red flags and to understand how driving abilities -- and risk for motor vehicle accidents -- change ...

# data[].attributes.body
Should it be mandatory to take care of your aging parents?

# data[].attributes.body
Should mobile phones be banned in schools?

# data[].attributes.body
Should all public universities be free?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Victor Tran, SFU Student

In Canada, the cost of higher education has become a topic of increasing concern . In response, the question of whether Canadians have the right to access higher education has come to the forefront . In recognition of universities' fantastic benefits to society, it's time to eliminate their greatest barrier to higher learn ing: tuition.

Education is one of the strategies for raising people out of poverty. Reducing the cost burden associated with higher education is a critical part of levelling the playing field among students from all income levels .

In Canada, lower-income teenagers are less inclined to attend universities. According to a report by Statistics Canada, only half of 19-year-olds from low-income families' decided to participate in post-secondary education, compared to almost from higher-income families.

This trend is a barrier to financial stability. Statistics Canada reports that 73.3% of people with a bachelor's degree in 2022, while only 53.7% of those with just a high school diploma were employed. This leads to massive differences in average income over a long-term peri od. By age 35, Canadian men with a bachelor's degree are an annual average of $64,000, compared to $44,000 for their high school graduate counterparts. At age 35, Canadian women with bachelor's degrees are an annual average of $37,000, compared to just $20,000 for high school graduates. Removing the financial burden posed by tuition will increase the attendance rate among all citizens and help more Canadians break out of a cycle of poverty.

Austria is a prime example of the benefits of free public universities. , the Austrian government erased all education fees for EU citizens; by 2015, the university attendance rate , from 51% before the education reform. The resulting increase in bachelor's degree holders should contribute significantly to the economy. The same is the case for other regions; the University of Minnesota's graduates contribute to annual GDP, while the University of Illinois' graduates contribute . In 2008, Austria's GDP reached $432 billion - a 28% increase within 2 years of providing free education.

Before we get too enthusiastic, we have to consider the potential pitfalls , starting with the problem of paying for free public schools. Free public school is not "free" - the cost is borne by the taxpayer. Germany, which provides free university education for national and international students, has a tax wedge, which means an average worker in Germany has to give up half of their income. Canada, on the other hand, has a tax wedge of only 31.4% in comparison.

It's not easy to raise taxes as a politician. To fund free public education, the government could face enormous backlash when raising the tax bracket. But public education pays back. It's one of the best investments a country can make, fueling competition, innovation, and economic growth. An educated population is a benefit, too. University graduates are more likely to and less likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories. It's a great investment, but we have to be patient.

Free higher education in Canada might seem far-fetched despite its outstanding benefits, but other countries are making it work. It's time for Canada to join their ranks and prioritize its citizens' development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Victor Tran, SFU Student In Canada, the cost of higher education has become a topic of increasing concern. In response, the question of whether Canadians have the right to access higher education has come to the forefront. In recognition of universities' fantastic benefits to society, it's time to eliminate their greatest barrier to higher...

# data[].attributes.body
Should universities be allowed to expel students who are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A group of students who reportedly made jokes about rape and used racial slurs have been suspended by the University of Warwick after private Facebook messages came to light.

Eleven male students have been suspended after screenshots of alleged racist, antisemitic and misogynistic messages in a Facebook group chat were shared with the prestigious university.

The exchanges included shocking remarks such as "sometimes it's fun to just go wild and rape 100 girls" and "rape the whole flat to teach them all [a] lesson."

A member of the group gave a racist reply using the term "p**i", while further remarks included "love Hitler, hate n****s and jews and Corbyn".

Student newspaper reported that three formal complaints were made to the university and almost 100 screenshots of the group chat submitted as evidence.

It added that the Facebook chat - which had been called "F*** women, Disrespect them all" and had screen names of "Grenfell" and "Taxi Jew" - included senior members of societies.

Discussing racism, one user said on the chat: "Yeah racism is frowned upon at Warwick? F****** bull." Others replied "EDL!" and "racism is class".

A University of Warwick Student Union (SU) spokeswoman said: "Warwick SU is aware of the ongoing university investigation into a group Facebook chat involving a number of Warwick students.

"The SU condemns the content of these messages - together with all forms of sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, ableism, and threats of violence - in the strongest possible terms.

"The SU has been supporting the victims and will continue to do so.

"We are also proactively cooperating with the university's ongoing investigation, and hope to see a conclusion as swiftly as possible."

A University of Warwick spokesperson said it was "a student disciplinary matter that is currently being actively investigated. We obviously cannot comment further on that matter until those investigations, and any subsequent disciplinary processes, are concluded."

A spokesperson for West Midlands Police said: "We are aware of the matters relating to the social media group involving a number of students and we are liaising with Warwick University."

The incident comes after a number of reports of racist incidents at universities since the start of the year.

Just last week, a number of law students who allegedly made racist comments were expelled by the University of Exeter after private WhatsApp conversations were shared on Facebook.

Meanwhile, Sheffield Hallam University recently launched an investigation after a black student was allegedly called a monkey by staff. The incident came after a banana was reportedly thrown at a black Sheffield Hallam graduate during an ice hockey match between his alma mater and city rivals, the University of Sheffield.

Meanwhile, two teenagers will appear in court later this month after a video of alleged racist chanting in student halls went viral.

Rufaro Chisango, a Nottingham Trent University student, posted footage she recorded on social media last month - which included chants of "We hate the blacks" and "Sign the Brexit papers".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 students suspended after shocking private Facebook messages come to light

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A group of students who reportedly made jokes about rape and used racial slurs have been suspended by the University of Warwick after private Facebook messages came to light. Eleven male students have been suspended after screenshots of alleged racist, antisemitic and misogynistic messages in a Facebook group chat were shared with the prestigious university.

# data[].attributes.body
Should Teenagers Be Allowed To Buy Violent Video Games?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say playing violent video games causes more aggression. Opponents say the games are a convenient scapegoat for real-life violence.

# data[].attributes.body
Should schools require students to wear uniforms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Require Students to Wear Uniforms? | What are the pros and cons of school uniforms?

# data[].attributes.body
Should the Monarchies be abolished?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Charles I was beheaded in 1649, a fundamental tenet in his belief, and in the belief of his supporters, as to why he should be King was the view that the English monarch was divinely appointed by God. Ultimately, when the monarchy was restored in 1688, the exposition of the divine right of Kings to rule died out - there was an appreciation that with the advancement of science, such an argument was less persuasive. However, although our current monarchs no longer rule us - instead holding a symbolic role of superiority - this notion that some are 'divinely' appointed to stand above the rest of us 'common folk' remains an underlying basis for the continued reign of the British Royal Family.

In the wake of the coronation, in which the country was very nearly asked to pledge its obedience to the new King, I'm forced to confront the reality that the very concept of the monarchy - especially in the form it takes in the UK - is an afront to the principles of democracy, equality, and individual sovereignty that our country has proudly boasted of.

The UK claims to be the home of parliamentary democracy, but can it really claim to be a democracy when we have an unelected head of state? The principles of democracy argue that those governing and in positions of power should only do so with the consent of the governed. A principle that is significantly undermined when the main signature needed to ensure a law is enacted is that of someone whose sole requirement be that they were born to the right person in the right order.

Furthermore, when we as citizens (not subjects) vote for MPs and for the government, we expect them to create legislation that applies equally to everyone, that doesn't favour those from a particular class, creed, or race. We certainly don't expect individuals who play key roles in our constitutional system to make use of their position to ensure that what legislation is produced is favourable specifically to their family.

Since 1967, the Queen, and now the King, has had exemptions written into over 160 different laws - the Royal household is exempt from employees of the monarch pursuing sexual or racial discrimination complaints, the monarchy is exempt from the 2010 Equality Act, police and environmental officers are banned from accessing the Royal families' private properties without first attaining permission, the monarchy is not required to pay income or capital gains tax (not even on private interests), and the monarchy is exempt from paying inheritance tax. This is only compounded by the fact that the Royal family has the right to inspect legislation that may affect them - and request alterations - before it becomes public.

As such, we have a situation where a select group of individuals, born into their positions, are able to intervene and exempt themselves from the democratically constructed law. When those in positions of power separate from the legislative body can so freely interfere with the making of laws, can we then truly label the UK a democracy?

...the very concept of the monarchy - especially in the form it takes in the UK - is an afront to the principles of democracy, equality, and individual sovereignty that our country has proudly boasted of.

This point about the Royal family being exempt from multiple laws feeds into my next point. Very clearly, the monarchy is a contradiction to the belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. When a select group are not only unlikely to be prosecuted for a breach of the law, but have illegal acts made permissible for them by the law itself, any illusion of equality must be thrown out of the window. The mere fact that one family in this country are born not just into great wealth, but into positions of national power and importance, indicates that we are not all equal - there are some of us born with more rights. This is a direct call back to the divine right of kings that once separated the monarchy from everyone else.

It is often argued that the monarchy plays an important role in representing the UK abroad. Royal visits are seen as a way in which the UK can advance its interests by soft power - giving the Royal family a valued diplomatic role. I argue that this is mistaken. At its zenith the British Empire ruled over roughly 25% of the world's surface. It therefore seems bizarre to argue that the best way to endear the UK to other countries, especially members of the commonwealth, is by sending over the direct descendants and representatives of the individuals and institution that sanctioned and endorsed the colonisation, looting, and desecration of the nations in the first place. Proof of this can be seen in William and Kate's trip to Jamaica in 2022. Prior to their arrival Jamaica indicated its intention to transition to a republic. Furthermore, an open letter signed by one hundred Jamaican academics, politicians, and cultural leaders branded the royal visitors as "direct beneficiaries of the wealth accumulated by the royal family...from the trafficking and enslavement of Africans".

The Royal Family's position as representatives of the UK not only harms chances at bridging diplomatic gaps, but it also contributes to a negative portrayal of the UK internationally. When the scandal over Prince Andrew's ties to Jeffery Epstein emerged, it directly harmed the Royal Family's reputation. And because the monarchy is the head of state, this directly harmed the UK's reputation as well. Similarly, issues with Prince Phillip making 'problematic' (racist and sexist) gaffes when abroad, and the scandal over Charles' affair with the now Queen Camilla, further harm the reputation of our country. In this way the monarchy's position as representatives and figure heads is a large negative for the interests of us all.

So what's the alternative? Many argue that were the position of head of state to be elected, it would bring in a political element and constitutional crisis that the current system avoids. This view, though, is premised on a mistaken assumption of the monarchy's apolitical nature. When the Royal Family's net worth is estimated to run into the billions, when the entire family was born into luxury and wealth, and when they are predominantly white and upper class, they cannot help but represent traditional, conservative values, the status quo, and the advancement of the wealthy.

By contrast, a duly elected head of state with the same duties and removed stance from the levers of power would act merely as some kind of 'chief diplomat'. An individual who could be relied upon to perform just their duties and could be unelected at the end of their term or at the arrival of scandals of the like that are becoming common with the Royal Family.

To conclude, if we truly value democracy, if we care about the reputation of the UK, and if we believe in the equality of all - then we have no option but to oppose the monarchy.
Responses to the case for abolition - Adam Arnfield

1. Many of the exemptions which the Royal Family have from laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, are exemptions they have because they are a family before they are a business, the laws often containing the words 'in [his] private capacity'. Moreover, the Queen voluntarily paid tax, despite not being required to do so. Of course, some of the exemptions, such as from sexual and racial discrimination complaints, should not exist, but these can simply be removed alongside Charles' modernising agenda - abolition is not required.

2. If we were to bar all people with morally questionable ancestors from diplomatic roles or other public offices, I'm not sure we'd have any diplomats or public figures left in Britain.

3. The monarchy clearly does more good for Britain's reputation than it does harm. The outpouring of affection from across the world at the late Queen's death and the vast number of international visitors to her funeral are surely signs of that.

The Case Against the Abolition of the Monarchy - Adam Arnfield
'Not to be served, but to serve'. Those were the words that we heard repeated over and over again throughout the coronation on Saturday. Although the coronation brings to mind a monarch in a golden carriage, waving to adoring crowds, at its core, Britain's monarchy is not about taking but about giving.

As much as royal duties may seem like the family repeatedly setting off around the world, tooting their own horns, the reality is very different. Royals do not make up their calendars as they please, but accept the invitations of the hundreds of organisations that desire and value their presence. Republicans might think the respect that the British people have for the Royal Family is misplaced and unhealthy. The suggestion here is that republicans know what's best for the British public, better than the British public themselves. This patronising attitude mirrors the paternalistic ethos which republicans so often rail against when protesting the monarchy.

As Stephen Fry points out, the monarchy can have a positive effect on government. The Prime Minister must meet the monarch on a weekly basis, discussing national affairs and explaining their decisions. Regularly meeting with a figure who symbolises the British people is a check on the Prime Minister's ego and a disincentive against corruption. Note that most of Boris Johnson's most outrageous scandals occurred during the 15 months wherein COVID prevented his meeting the Queen. Without a monarchy, would our leaders go even further off the rails? Of course, at elections the people can punish bad government. But elections happen only twice a decade, while the King meets with the Prime Minister every week to hear of their work. Patriotism might be stirring to some, but surely meeting with an embodied monarch inspires more fear than a mythic 'King Arthur'. Do we really imagine that Donald Trump, for example, feels a sense of duty towards Uncle Sam? A Prime Minister without a King is like an Oxford student without a tutor. And usually a PPE student at that!

The personal effect on the Prime Minister is clearly not the only political benefit monarchy brings. As I have written for the Oxford student previously , the Royal Family provides Britain with a national icon that it can honour and trust, without the toxic effects of giving a politician such power. I doubt I need to give examples of cults of personality leading to political overreach and disaster. A monarchy is a guard against popular politicians going too far. By contrast, the idea of a President Thatcher or a President Blair is not a comforting one. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, half of the world's twenty most democratic states are monarchies, and monarchies regularly score highly on Transparency International's absence of corruption index.

Despite regular complaints of 'taking taxpayers' money', having a monarchy actually saves Britain money. Brand Finance estimates that the royal family generates a net surplus for Britain, costing £292M, but generating £1.766B! Moreover, were republicans to have their way, even if we didn't add presidential campaigns to our election cycle, campaigns would certainly become more personalised and expensive. On top of those recurring costs, there would be an incredibly complicated and expensive process of untangling the Royal Family from the British political system, the two being intimately intertwined. The opening of parliament, the investing of power in the Prime Minister, the process by which bills become law, the welcoming of foreign diplomats to Britain, the management of Crown properties, and the symbols on various government services would all need to be reformed or replaced, to name but a few aspects of the process.

Do we really imagine that Donald Trump, for example, feels a sense of duty towards Uncle Sam? A Prime Minister without a King is like an Oxford student without a tutor.

The most important part of a republican Britain, however, would be the codification and entrenchment of a British constitution. Britain's political system currently functions on the basis of convention, and its structure puts the politically neutral monarch at its head. Therefore, the removal of the monarchy would need to be accompanied by the creation of a new constitution, as the duties of the head of state are vested elsewhere. Firstly, this process is likely to provoke the wrath of parliament: enshrining a certain set of laws as foundational and unchangeable could easily be considered a threat to 'parliamentary supremacy'. Secondly, the process would naturally become very partisan very quickly. Britain took nearly four years to negotiate Brexit with the EU, formalising rules about one part of its foreign policy. Imagine how long Britain would take, and how difficult it would be, to negotiate the rules of the entire political system. And remember we're talking about a negotiation not between two trading partners, but between two bitterly opposed political parties. The exact nature of various political processes, including the selection of the Prime Minister, the calling together and dissolution of parliament, and the relation of the Supreme Court and other institutions to parliament, would all need to be hashed out.

Of course, none of these positive effects are simply institutional. The Kings and Queens that have served Britain are not mere figureheads with no substance - they are real people with real personalities, and of course, they must come with real flaws. I do not want to pretend that King Charles, or past monarchs for that matter, are without sin. However, the monarchy has been able to recognise its role in the mistakes of Britain's past, with King Charles supporting research into the connection monarchy has had to slavery, calling it "the most painful period of our history". And as Britain steps into the future, it is led by a King who has been ahead of his time in climate advocacy, showing that the monarchy can have a positive influence despite being above politics.
Responses to the case against abolition - Leon Wheeler

1. Although the weekly meetings between the monarch and the PM represent a chance for the PM to be grilled about their achievements and conduct, to assume that this represents a check on their power or intentions is wrong. The monarch has the right to make suggestions or criticise conduct but not only does this display the fact that they do have a political stance, but it also has little effect. An Oxford tutor can impose some limited sanctions - a monarch cannot.

2. As for the apparent issues surrounding Parliament, the codification of the constitution, and the place of an elected 'president', I believe my opponent exaggerates them. There seems no need to me for any part of the UK's uncodified constitution to become entrenched - not even parts pertaining to a new head of state. Parliamentary sovereignty could easily be maintained in a republic, and I believe that in many cases the role of the monarch in the Parliamentary system could very easily be replaced by that of a president with very little alteration.

3. From a republican standpoint, to engage in a debate over whether the monarchy is a net financial positive or negative is a mistake. Such a debate is premised on the idea that if only the monarchy can reach a certain level of financial profitability, its existence is justified.

Image credit: Katie Chan at Wikimedia Commons. Image description: The carriage of King Charles III en route to his coronation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Case For and Against Abolishing the Monarchy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leon Wheeler and Adam Arnfield debate the benefits and drawbacks of the British monarchy, and whether its abolition should be considered.

# data[].attributes.body
Should democracies continue doing business with dictatorships and autocratic regimes?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At this year's G-7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, U.S. President Joe Biden summed up his foreign-policy doctrine in two words: " democracies deliver."

It is a sentiment shared by many other democratic leaders, such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who seek to showcase democratic success at a time of widespread democratic disillusionment.

But what does it mean for democracies to deliver? And how can they do it better?

In a recent book, Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman, Charles Dunst explores these questions, arguing that, while democracies have delivered great things in the past, from the Marshall Plan to the moon landing, democratic systems are falling short today.

If democracies want to maintain their edge in the global competition against autocracies, he asserts, they will need to identify their own deficits and remedy them. Only when democracies are flourishing at home can they maximize their power and influence abroad-and convince the world that the democratic model is one to be admired and emulated.

According to Dunst, a government delivers when it can provide "a good life" for its citizens. This generally means ensuring basic needs such as health care and education, functional and fair state institutions, and a strong economy.

Dunst notes that throughout history, democracies have delivered, thanks to their free, open, and stable systems. Indeed, as one of us argued in a recent book, democracies have consistently outcompeted autocracies for the past 2,500 years, from the Greeks against the Persians through the Cold War.

But Dunst warns that autocracies today are more capable and more attractive than in the past, threatening democracy's long-standing dominance. He argues that small autocracies such as Singapore and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) demonstrate how illiberal regimes can provide their people with a high quality of life-even while denying them basic political rights. Singapore's subsidized housing or the UAE's free health care services are appealing to many.

Larger autocracies can sometimes deliver, too. China, he argues, despite its recent slowdown, has made significant strides in infrastructure, education, and economic growth over the last few decades. Meanwhile, according to Dunst, democracies have been struggling with fraying or nonexistent social safety nets, outdated infrastructure, and political polarization, among other challenges, while autocracies build new airports and high-speed rail connections. It is no surprise that some are starting to question whether autocracies might be just as effective-if not more so-at delivering the good life than democracies.

Dunst argues that democracies are not doomed, but they need redirection and better long-term strategies to foster good governance and better compete with China and other autocracies.

He provides a series of policy recommendations for rejuvenating democracy: investing in human capital and innovation, building robust 21st-century physical and digital infrastructure, expanding health care and workers' rights, cleaning up corruption, and enacting smart immigration policies to attract the best and brightest to democratic shores.

Overall, Defeating the Dictators is a creative and thought-provoking book bolstered by well-researched statistics, potent anecdotes, and a slate of high-profile endorsements from defenders of democracy on both sides of the aisle in the United States and from around the world. It provides a welcome, mostly optimistic take on a subject characterized by too much recent pessimism.

Still, the book has some shortcomings.

First, the methodology is questionable. Dunst cherry-picks the world's most successful dictatorships, like Singapore and the UAE, and identifies their policy successes that democracies should emulate.

But this focus on highly anomalous autocracies risks losing sight of the broader, more dismal picture for dictators around the world, which Dunst only briefly mentions. After all, dictatorships are much more likely to be abject failures than standout successes. There is a robust correlation, for example, between autocratic rule and low GDP per capita.

Furthermore, Singapore and the UAE are both small states. It is doubtful their model can travel to other, larger states-whether autocracies or democracies.

Many of Dunst's sensible recommendations border on the unrealistic, as he himself acknowledges. Passing sweeping voting rights or immigration reform legislation in the United States and other major democracies will not be easy. Some of his solutions for overcoming gridlock-for politicians to be "braver" and have "courage"-are likely insufficient.

After all, the inability to force through massive change is a feature-not a bug-of democracy. Urging democracies, as Dunst does, to overcome their divisions and mass resources for investments in major priorities is like advising dictators to impose checks and balances on themselves to constrain rash decision-making. Neither set of recommendations meshes with the logic of the respective political system.

Second, with its strong and justified emphasis on domestic democratic renewal, the book mostly overlooks the important advantages that democracy provides in foreign policy. International relations scholars have shown that democracies build larger and more effective alliances, are more likely to sign and comply with international agreements, and are more likely to win the wars they fight.

In the strategic competition between democracies and autocracies, what democracies can achieve together may be more important than what they can achieve separately at home. Indeed, after Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there has been remarkable free-world unity, with the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia working together to sanction Russia and provide aid to Ukraine.

In many of the areas where Dunst advocates democratic investments, such as emerging technologies, democracies will be most successful if they combine efforts and work together. A democratic technology alliance, for example, could help the free world maintain its innovation edge and serve to embed democratic norms into 21st-century technologies. New democratic trade and economic partnerships could help "de-risk" and secure supply chains from autocratic coercion and overreliance on China and Russia.

To be sure, balancing domestic priorities with allied commitments will always be challenging, as evidenced by Europe's recent frustration with Washington's "Buy American" approach to clean energy innovation. Still, greater international coordination among like-minded democracies has vast potential.

In the end, democracies can defeat dictators by doing what they do best. They should continue to provide the stable economic institutions and freedoms that unleash radical economic innovation and high long-run rates of growth. They should use their combined economic heft to build the military power necessary to deter revisionist autocracies. They should expand and deepen their alliances and partnerships with like-minded states to advance shared goals and develop the free-world strategies of tomorrow.

They should also heed Dunst's advice, to the extent possible, and strengthen their own societies and institutions to unlock democracy's full potential at home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As authoritarian capitalism gains credibility, free societies must overcome their internal weaknesses.

# data[].attributes.body
Should governments be allowed to censor websites?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are pros and cons to any technology or innovation. The Internet is a useful tool, but people have started using it to threaten lives and put nations' security at risk. We are vulnerable to data thefts. The easy availability of sensitive information impacts the malleable minds of our children. Nation states employ varying degrees of regulatory mechanisms to ensure that the benefits of the Internet outweigh its ill effects. These steps fall under Internet censorship. It refers to the practice of state-monitored and controlled use of the Internet. The question that comes to mind is: should governments be allowed to censor inappropriate content on the Internet?
Why censorship is needed
Censorship of the Internet is needed in moderation. If left unmonitored, criminal minds and enemy states can use it to put you, your children, and your nation at risk. Some benefits are listed below:

1. Safeguards users from identity and data thefts

2. Protects from infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

3. Blocks access to obscene content such as porn sites

4. Critical to national security

5. Preventing the spread of disturbing information such as fake news

An excess of everything is bad
The peace of mind that a basic regulatory mechanism guarantees you can be taken away in states that use censorship and surveillance to intimidate citizens and restrict their freedom of expression. A fallout of extreme censorship can occur in several ways.

1. Free speech is the first casualty of excessive censorship

2. The state becomes a threat to its citizens

3. Access to basic information is denied

4. Social networking is banned or restricted

5. The high cost of surveillance eats into public revenues

Conclusion
Any power in the hands of the masses needs monitoring. The Internet is a powerful tool. With its unlimited channels of information, the Internet can become a boon or a bane depending on how its use is regulated. A government's job is to act as a watchdog and not become a bloodhound. So long as its censorship protects the nation and ensures a level-playing field for its citizens on the global stage, monitoring can lead to desirable results and is advocated.
Frequently Asked Questions
State-monitored use of the Internet is called Internet censorship. Internet censorship varies from government regulated or heavily surveilled. While most Asian countries are known to have higher levels of censorship than the Western and European countries. China, North Korea, Turkey, and Iran heavily censor Internet use. Countries with Internet restrictions block access to select sites and apps that they deem inappropriate or harmful to their people. Torrents, porn sites, and sites fishing for financial data and intellectual property are banned in several countries. No. Internet freedom is a right in the US. It is regulated by the government. Censorship is minimal. The Indian government regulates Internet use for its citizens. It also blocks and restricts access to sites and apps that threaten national security from time to time. Yes, several private organizations limit or restrict the use of the Internet for their employees at the workplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live 1:1 Public Speaking & Creative Writing Classes | PlanetSpark

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PlanetSpark platform leverages powerful technology to provide live online classes to K8 learners on Public Speaking and Creative Writing skills. PlanetSpark is on a journey to make the traditional and unorganized tuitions obsolete through its virtual classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Should 14-year-olds be allowed to work legally?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Preparing for Adult Life

Most parents and primary caregivers agree that one of the primary objectives of raising a child is preparing him or her for life out in the real world. Every family has its own set of values it passes on to its children. Some value empathy, some value respect, and some value kindness. Some value all these and more. Regardless of what the family's moral and ethical code is, after these fundamental building blocks, almost all parents and primary caregivers strive to instill some sort of work ethic into their children. After all, just about everyone on earth has to work for a living, and no one wants this to come as a total surprise to their children. When the little birds are ready to leave the nest, parents want them to be ready for whatever life has to offer them. So, the question is: how do you teach your children about work and instill a solid work ethic in them? There are many answers to this question and there are many paths to personal responsibility. Once kids are old enough, one way to teach them about what working is like is to let them really do it: allow them to get out there and get a job. This is a common practice for many families. Specific laws vary from state to state, but most places in the U.S. allow young people to start working for wages (i.e., filling out tax paperwork and reporting income) during the early teenage years. The United States Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes the minimum age for employment at age 14 and limits the number of hours and type of work for young people under age 16.

The Pros and Cons of Allowing a Teenager to Work

Every teenager is different and will respond to new and unique life experiences in their own way. When considering whether or not to allow your teenager to get a job, the main thing to think about is whether or not the job will negatively affect academic performance. If the answer is no and you feel your child can handle it, the next step is to talk it over, check the laws of your state, and let your teenager go see what's out there.

The following list of pros and cons is meant to help both parents and teenagers start thinking seriously about the reality of teenage jobs:

Jobs can add stress to a child's life.

Jobs can expose kids to people and situations they might not be ready for.

A teen working a job might feel like childhood is ending too soon.

Teens who work too much-more than 15 hours a week-get lower grades than kids who don't work at all.

Teenagers who work have money that could possibly be spent on things that aren't good for them, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Is Working Good for Teenagers?

Benefits of Having a Job as a Teenager

Research shows that, in general, working a job has positive developmental effects on the life of a teenager. There's a catch, however: too much work is not good, and too little work doesn't show positive results. Moderate, steady work proves the most beneficial route for teens who do work. That said, it's extremely important for parents to be involved in the process: they need to visit the place of employment to make sure it has a good feel, and they need to monitor the number of hours worked to make sure their teenager is not working too many nights or weekends. In addition, parents need to be certain that their teenager is not doing hazardous work. The best guidelines for teenage work hours and teenage workplace safety can be found at the websites of the United States Department of Labor and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Best Part-Time Jobs for Teenagers

There are plenty of reasons why teens should work. Taking on a part-time job as a teenager builds independence and teaches responsibility. Some of the benefits of having a job as a teenager include helping teens avoid depression and teaching work ethic and valuable life skills. Working in high school helps teenagers get a head start by building a resume from an early age. A job can be an opportunity for unhappy teens to find a sense of belonging as part of a team and helps all teenagers learn about the value of money and how much - or little - a paycheck can cover.

However, finding the right job can be crucial in helping a teen succeed at a part-time job. A teen should consider their natural strengths, as well as how far outside their comfort zone they're willing to stretch. Dealing with customers can help a shy teen gain confidence, but it can also be a draining experience for one who's naturally more introverted. Teens looking for a first job should consider aspects like the level of physical labor, interactions with customers, the size of the company, and the types of employees they see working at a potential workplace.

What Are the Best Places for Teenagers to Work?

There's no shortage of summer jobs for teens. Increased business in the summertime means that many businesses are in desperate need of extra help. Some of the best seasonal part-time jobs for teenagers include:

Coffee shops

Ice cream parlors

Movie theaters

Pools

Amusement parks

Jump parks

Landscaping companies

Babysitting

Pet-sitting

Many places like these want to hire teenagers to handle additional summer business. They're often flexible with a teen's schedule, and teenagers often enjoy working with peers of the same age.

Many businesses also hire part-time workers year-round. When a teen is looking for a part-time job they hope to keep for the full school year, some of the best places for teenagers to work include stores, restaurants, warehouses, and hotels.

How to Balance Work and School as a Teenager

Balancing work and school is the central consideration when it comes to the question: Should teenagers have jobs? Every teen is different; some achieve academic goals with apparent ease, while others have a harder time making good grades. Some teens have few commitments outside of class, while others have a heavy load of extracurriculars on top of their regular school hours.

Successfully balancing work and school requires considering a teen's needs and how much time they have to allocate to a job - without studies, homework, and downtime taking a hit. A teen can calculate the time they spend on homework and extracurriculars, identifying how much extra time they have in a given week to spare for work. They can use that target number to find a job with a manageable number of hours.

Parents sometimes ask: At what age should a teenager get a job? As with other considerations, it depends on a teen's maturity level, grades, and other responsibilities. If a teen wants to earn their own money and they're doing well in school, they're probably ready to take on a job at whatever age is legal in their state.

What Are the Highest-Paying Teen Jobs?

Many teen jobs pay minimum wage, especially if a teen has no work experience. However, sometimes teens can find higher-paying positions, even if it's their first job. Many employers in the food industry, like restaurants, coffee shops, and food trucks, allow teens to accept tips on top of their hourly wage, and tipped positions can pay handsomely.

Jobs that provide a personalized service, like babysitting, pet-sitting, or house cleaning, can also pay significantly over minimum wage. The same is true of positions that require manual labor, like warehouse positions. Finally, a paid internship is another teen job option that can pay generously.

Final Thoughts

Some parents are hesitant to let teens take on real-world responsibilities too quickly. But when it comes to the question of "What is the value of work for teenagers?" it's clear that allowing a teen to take on the responsibility of a part-time job can bring lifelong benefits. Parents can support teens by guiding them to find a job that fits their personality and schedule. Teens who work learn valuable skills - including recognizing when they've taken on more than they can handle. Allowing a teenager to work while still in high school allows parents to help guide a teen to make smart adult choices before they're out in the world on their own.

Finally, when teenagers work it's vital for everyone involved to remember that adolescence is about many things, and learning about work, developing a work ethic, and growing into adulthood are parts of a bigger picture. With that in mind, it's best for a teenager to find a healthy balance between work, extracurricular activities, and school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are the pros and cons to help both parents and teenagers start thinking seriously about the reality of teenage jobs. Learn the benefits of teen jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
Should animals be liberated from zoos?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explainer

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound - but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

For many people, zoos are the only chance they'll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems - lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs - the list goes on. And they're popular - over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year. But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education.

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos? Let's take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations.

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall.

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor Conditions for Animals
Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space
Many zoos' enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild - large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring. In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet.
Zoos Are Crowded
In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit, increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure.
Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments
Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.
Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals
The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals; most notably in the form of what's known as "stereotypy." Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur.

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: "zoochosis," or psychosis caused by zoos.
'Surplus' Animals Can Be Killed
After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed "surplus." At this point, the animal's welfare is no longer profitable. Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or "euthanize" the animal.
Animals Are Often Mistreated
Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways.

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions, many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals' enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don't always clean the exhibits frequently, leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who "misbehave," and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare.
Animals Don't Like Being Visited
The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals. Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species.
Animals Struggle to Form Connections
Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind - especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections. This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally.
Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals
Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn't cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization.
Zoos Promote Human Superiority
The aesthetic nature of zoos - animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species - can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, "visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world." Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals' freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don't Always Help with Conservation - Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that's not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild, often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders.
It's Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild
Releasing an animal into the wild isn't always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars - and it doesn't always work. Captive-born predator species - disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment - only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent, according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.
Zoos Are Poorly Regulated
While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act, they only offer minimum protections. For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its "minimum" standards of care usually ensure the animals' safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don't go far enough.
What Are the Pros of Having Zoos? They Can Be Important for Researchers
Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos' ease of access. However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos.

Zoos Are Educational - People May Behave "Eco-friendlier" After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals' interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos. '
Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals
Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment - in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children.

But zoos aren't perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education.
Going to the Zoo Is Affordable
More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats - like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions - are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals.
Conservation Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction
Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas.

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don't represent the majority of a zoo's activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered. In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats.
Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?
Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo.

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources, especially energy and water. Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.
Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?
Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist - or at least, not exist in their current form.

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily "alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction." He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone, and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement.

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity.

Zoos do have advantages - fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don't involve taking animals out of their natural habitats.
The Bottom Line
If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you'd be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debates about the ethics of zoos abound - but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.