# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 80% of LGBTQ voters say they are more motivated to vote this year, according to a poll by the LGBTQ organization GLAAD. Many say they feel like their lives depend on this vote.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

The vast majority of LGBTQ voters are more motivated to vote this election than past elections. That is according to a poll out earlier this month by the LGBTQ organization GLAAD. NPR's Brianna Scott spoke to some of those voters this week.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

RICHARD GRENELL: I'm here to tell you Donald Trump is 100% with us.

BRIANNA SCOTT, BYLINE: That's Richard Grenell. This year, Trump named him as acting head of intelligence, making Grenell the first openly gay person to serve in a U.S. cabinet-level position. He spoke last week at a Trump Pride rally in Tampa, Fla.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

GRENELL: And I say, Mr. President, the gays love you.

(APPLAUSE)

SCOTT: That statement doesn't ring true for Alphonso David. He's president of the Human Rights Campaign.

ALPHONSO DAVID: Donald Trump is doing what Donald Trump does best, which is gaslighting people into believing that he supports them when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

SCOTT: David says many LGBTQ voters feel like this current administration has unjustly targeted them.

DAVID: And they know what is at risk if Donald Trump wins another election.

SCOTT: David points to Trump's ban on openly transgender people serving in the military as one of the most visible issues for the LGBTQ community this past term. And in 2019, the White House opposed the Equality Act, which would provide comprehensive protections for LGBTQ people inside and outside of the work force. And appointing conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court this week doesn't help.

DAVID: Her professional actions as a scholar and a jurist raised significant concerns about her ability to be impartial and fair when considering cases that will impact the LGBTQ community.

SCOTT: The HRC put out a report about what they say is troubling about Barrett's record, including instances of her defending the Supreme Court's dissenters on the 2015 marriage equality case and arguing that Title IX protections don't extend to transgender Americans. GLAAD's poll shows that more than 70% of LGBTQ voters favor Biden, while only 17% support Trump.

CHANCE MCCRAW: He's got a great record as far as, you know, just viewing human beings as human beings.

SCOTT: Chance McCraw is in that 17%. He lives in Virginia with his husband of six years. McCraw is worried about Joe Biden raising his taxes, and he doesn't think there's any pressing LGBTQ-specific issues right now.

MCCRAW: President Trump, I think, has shown that, you know, equality is equality. We're no longer fighting over gay marriage. And I think that means that people are more interested now in economic issues, and that's why they're coming to the Republican Party.

JUAN PORTER: For you, it's a financial argument. For me, it's a can-I-even-be-in-the-room argument.

SCOTT: That's Juan Porter from New York. You might have guessed it, but he doesn't agree with conservatives like McCraw who back Trump. That doesn't mean Porter is enthusiastic about voting for Biden and Harris. He's living with HIV, so his main concern this election season...

PORTER: I am focused on health care because it is a noose around many people's necks. If I did not have subsidized health care, I wouldn't be able to afford my medication, which is $3,000 a month.

SCOTT: Roughly 9 million LGBTQ people are registered to vote. Like many other voter blocs, the issues are wide-ranging. But just feeling safe - that's key.

ANDY SUN: To people who aren't in the affected community, it can be a debate or something that's an intellectual discussion. But to me, it's my life.

SCOTT: Andy Sun lives in Missouri. She says there's only one option this year because for the last four, transgender rights have been under attack. So she's heading to the polls next week to vote for Biden. Sun says regardless of who is in office, what she wants...

SUN: Is an administration who will listen, and that they will encourage more people in this country to run for office to represent everybody and not just some of the people.

SCOTT: Sun says if Biden is elected, she'll be holding him accountable for the promises he's made to the LGBTQ community.

Brianna Scott, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF KIASMOS' "SWAYED")

Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's At Stake For LGBTQ Voters This Election?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 80% of LGBTQ voters say they are more motivated to vote this year, according to a poll by the LGBTQ organization GLAAD. Many say they feel like their lives depend on this vote. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The vast majority of LGBTQ voters are more motivated to vote this election than past elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guns carried in public pose a danger to public safety, and lax concealed carry laws increase the risk of violent confrontations.

The carrying of concealed, loaded guns in public places can quickly escalate everyday conflicts into deadly altercations, causing tragic, irreversible damage to innocent lives. These dangers are amplified when states weaken their standards for who is qualified to carry loaded weapons in public, or when states eliminate these standards and protections entirely.

Background

Increase in violent crime due to concealed carry

Violent crime rates rose 13-15% in states that weakened their standards for concealed carry.

Source

John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, "Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 16, no. 2 (2019): 198-247.

Historically, almost every state prohibited or strictly limited the carrying of concealed, loaded weapons in public places. These restrictions were among the earliest gun laws adopted in the United States. In the late 20th century, some states began to grant law enforcement discretion to issue permits (often called "CCW" or carrying a concealed weapon permits) to people who passed a background check and received firearm safety training and/or demonstrated a particular need to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. At the behest of the gun lobby, however, many states have in recent years substantially weakened standards for qualifying for these permits-and 26 states have now eliminated these protections entirely.

These changes have enormously expanded the number of people who are authorized to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public streets, crowds, and spaces, and also often significantly increased the number of public locations in which the public may carry firearms, including public parks and schools, college campuses, hospitals, government buildings, bars, and many others.

Researchers estimated in 2015 that 9 million US adults carry loaded handguns monthly, and that 3 million carry loaded handguns every day.

Proportionally fewer people carry concealed loaded handguns in states that have strong concealed carry permitting standards.

Many people may be surprised to learn just how lax many states' standards are. In 2020, a member of the US Commission on Civil rights expressed alarm that weak public carry laws like the state of Florida's still allowed the man who murdered Trayvon Martin to possess and carry loaded concealed firearms in public, despite his history of domestic violence and assaulting a police officer, killing Trayvon Martin, and then subsequently being convicted of criminally stalking someone else. Of the 26 states that now authorize people to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit or background check required, all but one also allow people to purchase handguns without a background check too, meaning that the residents of 25 states are generally able to purchase and carry concealed weapons designed to take human life in most public spaces without ever passing any background check whatsoever, or ever receiving any safety training or information about safe and responsible handling of firearms.

The most comprehensive and rigorous study of concealed carry laws found that in states with weak permitting laws, violent crime rates were 13% to 15% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place.

Weak concealed-carry permitting laws are also associated with 11% higher rates of homicide committed with handguns compared with states with stronger permitting systems.

The dangerous impacts of weak permitting laws also extend to nonfatal injuries. States that weakened their permitting laws saw a 9.5% increase in rates of gun assaults in the first 10 years after adopting these weaker standards.

Guns carried in public pose a substantial threat to public safety. A robust body of academic literature shows that when more people carry guns in public, violent crime increases.
There is also some evidence that lax concealed carry laws increase other undesirable outcomes, including police shootings of civilians, gun thefts, and unintentional gun injuries.

A study of states that adopted permitless concealed carry laws found that such states experienced a 13% increase in fatal and nonfatal police shootings of civilians compared to what would have been expected had stronger carrying standards remained in place.

People who carried firearms at least once in the past month were three times more likely to have had a firearm stolen than other gun owners.

Similarly, one analysis suggests that unintentional firearm injuries may occur more frequently after states weaken permitting standards.

Studies found that certain aspects of the permitting process have been beneficial, including live-fire training and prohibitions preventing people with a history of misdemeanor violence from carrying in public. In fact, states that ended live-fire training requirements when adopting permitless carry laws saw a 32% increase in gun assaults.

Firearms are rarely used successfully in self-defense. In fact, individuals successfully defend themselves with a gun in less than one percent of crimes.

In the rare instances in which firearms are used in self defense, research shows that using a firearm did not reduce a person's chance of being injured during criminal victimization more than other various forms of protection did.

Carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim's risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.

In addition to the robust evidence showing the dangers of permissive public carry laws, there is no research that suggests expanding public carry has any public safety benefits.

Summary of Federal Law

Federally Mandated CCW

In recent years, the gun lobby has been pushing federal legislation that would mandate that each state recognize concealed carry permits from every other state. So far, such efforts have been unsuccessful. Many states have extremely lax permitting laws; many states do not even require a permit to carry concealed. Forcing states with strong CCW laws like California and New York to comply with weak laws from states like Florida and Louisiana will endanger public safety and make it significantly harder for police to enforce gun laws proven to save lives.

Law Enforcement CCW

Federal law provides that certain law enforcement officers may carry concealed firearms. Any "qualified law enforcement officer" with proper agency-issued identification may carry a concealed firearm. "Qualified retired law enforcement officer" with proper identification may also carry a concealed firearm. Both statutes supersede state and local laws regarding concealed carry by law enforcement except in certain circumstances. States are not precluded from allowing private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property by current or retired law enforcement. States also are not precluded from prohibiting or restricting the possession of firearms by current or retired law enforcement on any state or local government property, installations, buildings, bases, or parks.

Background Check Exception

Significantly, a person holding a state-issued permit allowing the person to acquire or possess firearms (e.g., a concealed weapons permit) is not required to undergo a background check if the permit was issued: (1) within the previous five years in the state in which the transfer is to take place; and (2) after an authorized government official has conducted a background investigation to verify that possession of a firearm would not be unlawful. Permits issued after November 30, 1998 qualify as exempt only if the approval process included a NICS check.

This exemption threatens public safety because it allows a prohibited person to acquire a firearm when the person falls into a prohibited category after issuance of the state permit and the state has not immediately revoked the permit. Under the federal exemption, no background check is required and the seller would have no way to learn that the prospective purchaser is prohibited from possessing firearms. For more information about this exemption, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.

Summary of State Law

Every state-as well as the District of Columbia-authorizes people to carry concealed weapons in public in some form. Twenty-three states generally require a state-issued permit in order to carry concealed weapons in public (CCW permit). However, the remaining 27 (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming) now generally allow people to carry concealed weapons in most public spaces without any permit, background check, or safety training at all. (However, 26 of these 27 states still issue CCW permits; individuals may desire them to qualify for an exemption from federal law's background check requirements when purchasing a firearm, or so that they may carry concealed weapons in other states or additional locations.)
States That Require CCW Permit States That Do Not Require CCW Permit

Alabama (Effective Jan. 1, 2023)

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas (effective approximately August 29, 2021)

Idaho

Iowa (effective July 1, 2021)

Indiana (effective July, 1, 2022)

Florida (effective July 1, 2023)

Georgia

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska (effective September 10, 2023)

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas (effective Sept. 1, 2021)

Utah

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

Of the 27 states that do not require a permit or background check to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in public, only two of them-Nebraska and Vermont-require a background check to purchase some or all firearms. In other words, in 25 states, a person may purchase and carry a firearm in public without any background check. See Universal Background Checks for more information.

suitable person requirements

Gun homicide increase due to concealed carry

Weak concealed carry permitting laws are associated with 11% higher handgun homicide rates than states with strong permitting systems.

Source

Michael Siegel, et al., "Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 107, no. 12 (2017): 1923-1929.

Ten states and the District of Columbia require applicants to establish that they are "suitable persons" to carry a concealed weapon before being issued a permit. Some states call this a "good moral character" requirement. For example, Connecticut will not issue permits to "individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon." New Jersey requires that three "reputable persons" who have known the applicant for at least three years certify that the applicant is of "good moral character and behavior." Delaware also requires that the applicant include with his or her application a certificate signed by five "respectable citizens" of the county in which the applicant resides stating that the applicant is of good moral character, has a reputation for peace and good order, and that possession of a concealed deadly weapon by the applicant is necessary for the protection of the applicant or the applicant's property. Indiana requires that the applicant be of good character and reputation. Rhode Island requires a person to either have a suitable character or make a "proper showing of need."

Some states that do not have an affirmative "suitable person" application requirement still allow a CCW application to be denied to a person who is not categorically ineligible if law enforcement can show a documented reason to believe the person is dangerous.

California

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Georgia (permit not required for concealed carry)

Hawaii

Indiana (permit not required for concealed carry)

Maine (permit not required for concealed carry)

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

Rhode Island (as an alternative to a proper showing of need)

States That Require an Applicant to be a Suitable Person

Alabama (permit not required for concealed carry)

Arkansas (permit not required for concealed carry)

Colorado

Illinois

Iowa (permit not required for concealed carry)

Maryland

Minnesota

Missouri (permit not required for concealed carry)

Montana (permit not required for concealed carry)

North Dakota (permit not required for concealed carry)

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota (permit not required for concealed carry)

Utah (permit not required for concealed carry)

Virginia

Wyoming (permit not required for concealed carry)

GET THE FACTS

Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there's no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country's gun violence crisis at every level.
Learn More

States Without a Suitable Person Requirement that Allow Denials When There is Reason to Believe the Person is Dangerous

States Requiring Applicants to Demonstrate Knowledge of Firearm Use and/or Safety

More than half of the states and the District of Columbia require a CCW permit applicant to demonstrate that they have received training in firearm use and/or safety.

States with a firearm safety training requirement

Alaska (permit not required for concealed carry)

Arizona (permit not required for concealed carry)

Arkansas (permit not required for concealed carry)

California

Connecticut

Colorado

Delaware

Hawaii

Idaho (permit not required for concealed carry)

Illinois

Iowa (permit not required for concealed carry)

Florida (permit not required for concealed carry)

Kansas (permit not required for concealed carry)

Kentucky (permit not required for concealed carry)

Louisiana

Maine (permit not required for concealed carry)

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri (permit not required for concealed carry)

Montana (permit not required for concealed carry)

Nebraska (permit not required for concealed carry as of 9/10/2023)

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota (permit not required for concealed carry)

Ohio (permit not required for concealed carry)

Oklahoma (permit not required for concealed carry)

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee (permit not required for concealed carry)

Texas (permit not required for concealed carry)

Utah (permit not required for concealed carry)

Virginia

West Virginia (permit not required for concealed carry)

Wyoming (permit not required for concealed carry)

Knowledge and safe handling of firearms and ammunition;

Safe storage of firearms and ammunition and child safety;

Safe firearms shooting fundamentals;

Federal and state laws pertaining to the lawful purchase, ownership, transportation, use, and possession of firearms;

State laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense; and

Techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution.

For example, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia require applicants to complete a firearm safety course, or otherwise demonstrate their qualification to use a firearm safely.

Delaware's firearm safety training requirement, which applies to the applicant's initial CCW license only, is particularly strong, and specifies that the training course must include instruction regarding:

Delaware also requires that the training include live fire-shooting exercises on a range, including the expenditure of a minimum of 100 rounds of ammunition, and identification of ways to develop and maintain firearm-shooting skills. Finally, Rhode Island requires applicants to obtain a certification that they are qualified to use a handgun of a caliber equal to or larger than the one they seek to carry. The certification can be obtained by passing a firing test conducted by a range officer or pistol instructor. Such thorough training requirements help ensure that only highly trained individuals are allowed to carry concealed firearms in public areas.

States Limiting the Locations where Concealed Weapons May be Carried

Almost every state imposes at least some restrictions on the locations in which concealed weapons may be carried. For more information, see our page on Location Restrictions.

Other Restrictions on Permits

State concealed weapons permits vary in duration and renewal processes. The strongest laws limit the duration of permits and require applicants for renewal of a permit to undergo a complete background check and complete safety training and testing. Strong state laws also require the immediate revocation of a permit if the permit-holder becomes ineligible for the permit or violates a law regarding firearms.

State laws also vary regarding the carrying of concealed weapons by individuals who have obtained a permit from a different state. The strongest state laws limit the carrying of concealed weapons to individuals who have obtained a permit from that state. Other states limit carrying to individuals with permits from states that have similar requirements for their permits. The states with the weakest laws allow carrying by individuals with permits from any state that recognizes that state's permit, or by individuals with permits from any state.

A license or permit to carry is required.

Law enforcement should issue permits based on objective guidelines and only to those individuals who can show they are suitable persons to carry concealed weapons.

In addition to background checks, applicants are required to have safety training and to pass written and hands-on tests demonstrating knowledge of firearm laws and safety (27 states require some form of firearm training/knowledge).

Applicants must be 21 years of age or over.

Restrictions are placed on the locations where carrying concealed weapons is permitted, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in sensitive areas such as schools, courthouses, legislative buildings, polling stations, hospitals, mental health institutions, bars, and public sporting events.

Permits are of limited duration and may be renewed only upon satisfaction of all conditions and testing, including background checks.

Permits are subject to revocation in cases where holder becomes prohibited from possessing firearms or fails to comply with applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Key Legislative Elements

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Universal background checks save lives from gun violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 2016, the opening month of presidential primary season, I visited a public high school in New York City to teach a lesson about political polarization in the United States. The students were all black and Latino and had grown up in Manhattan, a borough that voted 84 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

I began by explaining that I was going to give them one word and ask them to write down all the words that came to mind when they heard that word. Then, I would give them a second word and they would do the same thing. The first word was Republican, and the second word was Democrat.

We then made a class list of the words they had chosen. Students identified many that one might expect. Republican lists often included conservative, capitalism and Donald Trump. Democrat lists included blue, Barack Obama and middle class. When asked what they noticed about the lists, students immediately recognized that there was a difference in tone. The Democrat lists also included positive words like honest, caring and supportive. The Republican lists, on the other hand, included labels like greedy and heartless.

The activity demonstrates what political scientists term "affective polarization." That is, as our country becomes politically polarized, one effect is that people increasingly distrust-or disdain-those who identify as members of political parties to which they, themselves, do not belong. This trend applies to both sides of the primary partisan divide in the United States. A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans have a "very unfavorable" view of the other party. These numbers reflect a significant increase since 1994, when 16 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Republicans reported a "very unfavorable" view.

The students at the Manhattan high school I visited are growing up in what my colleague and collaborator Diana Hess and I have labeled a "like-minded" school. (We define schools as like-minded if 80 percent of the students reported either solidly liberal views or solidly conservative views on a survey of eight political issues.)

We found that students who grow up in politically homogeneous communities (be they liberal or conservative) develop some positive civic characteristics. While in high school, they score significantly higher on a measure of civic engagement than their peers in politically diverse schools. After high school, they are more likely to pay attention to elections, and they are more likely to report that their families and friends think it is important to keep up with the news. In our study, they also voted in midterm and general elections at much higher rates than other young people.

But political science research also shows that people who have strong ideological views (solid liberals and solid conservatives) are also more likely to believe that the other side has no good views (political intolerance), dismiss credible information that does not comport with their views (confirmation bias), and believe that politics is a battle between "the good team" and "the bad team" (affective polarization).

As anti-bias educators, we should be concerned about the negative effects of polarization. Democracy erodes when citizens do not enter the public sphere with a spirit of what Professor of Government Danielle Allen at Harvard University labels "political friendship." In Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship Since Brown v. Board of Education, Allen writes that living in a democracy requires citizens to recognize that they will lose at times, but those losses are tolerable if we trust that our rivals will govern with attention to the common good.

Civic Education in an Era of Polarization

For the past 25 years, the United States has been experiencing increasing political polarization; this is the only political context that young people today have experienced. Polarization also shows no signs of abating. Given this reality, how should teachers prepare young people for living in a democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teaching Tolerance provides free resources to educators-teachers, administrators, counselors and other practitioners-who work with children from kindergarten through high school. Educators use our materials to supplement the curriculum, to inform their practices, and to create civil and inclusive school communities where children are respected, valued and welcome participants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Michael Cunningham

A conversation about the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the legacy that sparked it, with one of the world's leading experts on policing
Professor Daniel Nagin is the 2014 recipient of the prestigious Stockholm Prize on Criminology, an elected fellow of the American Society of Criminology, and the Teresa and H. John Heinz III University Professor of Public Policy and Statistics. His research focuses on the evolution of criminal and antisocial behaviors over the life course the deterrent effect of criminal and non-criminal penalties on illegal behaviors, and the development of statistical methods for analyzing longitudinal data.

In the wake of recent incidences of lethal violence involving law enforcement officials in Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, and Dallas, we sat down with Nagin to talk to him about what factors led to these events, why there is apparent mistrust between citizens and law enforcement officials, and what policy, research, and training measures can be taken to help prevent these situations in the future.
Professor Daniel Nagin
---
Michael Cunningham: Based on your research, are the events in recent years and weeks that have led to the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement reflective a small number of outlying incidents, or is it symptomatic of a systemic problem?

Daniel Nagin: The Black Lives Matter Movement has to be understood in the context of the historical legacy of the ill treatment of blacks by the police and the criminal justice system and American political and social institutions more generally. That legacy is a fact. The Movement, I think, is a reflection of and reaction to that legacy. I don't think people should be surprised by it, and it's part of why people should listen to the Black Lives Matter position. At the same time getting people to listen has been greatly complicated by the lethal ambushes of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

MC: Live telecasting or near-real time videos of events as they are happening makes them so much more apparent and visceral, as opposed to reading a news article about it.

DN: When you see video, for example, of the incident in North Charleston, where a police officer gunned down a man who was running away from him-you can't deny those facts. I don't know what motivated this cop to do it, but I'm not surprised that black people interpreted it as still another instance of their mistreatment by the police.

MC: You mentioned recent studies about lethal force. In terms of research, what do we know about the disproportionate targeting of minorities, particularly African-Americans, by law enforcement agencies?

DN: Studies on this question come to conflicting conclusions. Some studies have concluded that minorities are disproportionately targeted, and others reach the opposite conclusion. In fact, in a recent study on this issue, Roland Fryer from Harvard reached the conclusion that it depends on what kind of tactic you're talking about. He concluded that for non-lethal uses of force, involving things like handcuffing the person, shoving them, or having some physical contact with them, those events were in the order of 10 to 25 percent more likely for blacks than for whites. On the other hand, he reached the conclusion that, if anything, lethal use of force is more common among whites than blacks. So it's hard to draw really strong conclusions one way or the other on this issue.

MC: Why don't researchers currently have a better answer to this question?

DN: I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that we simply don't have very good data about these incidences. As surprising as this is, there is not a national database where you can confidently get a count of the number of people against which police used lethal violence, let alone on instances when they discharge firearms. So the studies that have been done are based on data from specific localities that are often of uneven quality. For this reason alone, findings may differ across studies.

The Black Lives Matter Movement has to be understood in the context of the historical legacy of the ill treatment of blacks by the police and the criminal justice system and American political and social institutions more generally. That legacy is a fact. Professor Daniel Nagin

Another issue is that, conceptually, this is a really hard problem. And it's a hard problem because there are differences across racial and ethnic groups in the frequency that they commit crime, which puts some groups in contact with the police at a rate that is disproportionate to their presence in the population. Taking account of those differences in involvement in crime is not easy to do from a statistical perspective.

The problem is made even further difficult because we also live in a racially segregated society. So, if you are going to send the police where there is the most crime, you're also going to wind up sending the police to what are typically racially segregated communities. For example, there was a study done of the locations of "stop, question, and frisk" in New York City. SQFs tended to be heavily concentrated in so-called crime "hot spots," which themselves tend to be disproportionately located in minority communities.

So it's conceptually a hard problem to grapple with because it is so complex. But the fact that we don't have good data on these kinds of incidences is unforgivable. These are the two main reasons why we don't currently have a better answer to the question of whether black and other minorities are disproportionately targeted on account of their race or ethnicity.

MC: In addition to collecting better data, what are some other factors that will help to solve this issue?

DN: The problem of data can be solved, and it should be solved. But even if it is solved, the data can only help us understand and explain the problem. It can't fix the problem. Once you use data to identify what the problem is, then you're going to have to change what the police do, and how they interact with the public. And in that regard, there is wide agreement among policing scholars that the research on the effectiveness of police training is woefully inadequate. There are very few careful studies on what's effective and what's not effective in changing the behavior of police in the field.

MC: Can you provide an example of that, or a hypothetical question that you would like to answer through this type of research?

DN: For example: when police do use force, how well considered is it? Would a trained observer conclude that the use of force was necessary and appropriate? Was there a conceivable way that the use of force could have been avoided by some kind of de-escalation tactic?

The comparison I would give is that police, in general, do not receive anywhere near the level of training that we give to the members of our military on how to control their emotions and respond in a way that is going to be effective and constructive in conflict situations. People in our military, and in the best militaries in the world, get intensive training in those kinds of things, and by and large police don't get anywhere near that level of training.

MC: As a point of comparison, where do police stand compared to the military in terms of conflict training?

DN: Again, there is not really good data on training, but I think that it's well understood that, in general, it's nowhere near as complete and thorough as in the military. Part of the issue with training is that, in the United States, there are over 18,000 police departments, and most of them are very small. And when you have these little police departments, the capacity to properly train the police officers and establish a culture of accountability is really limited. So I think there's an important need to consolidate the number of police departments that exist nationwide, for a variety of reasons.

The idea is not to have a safe police state. The idea is to have a safe democratic society. Professor Daniel Nagin

MC: From a policy standpoint, what effect do you think recent events will have on policy procedures and oversight in law enforcement on different levels?

DN: I think that we already see it happening. Police executives are talking about the importance of training police to better interact with people in the community, and about using other methods to try to diffuse tense situations. There's also this idea of implicit bias. All of these notions are laudable, but getting back to my prior point: If you were to candidly ask a police chief, "tell me the proven methods to do 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z,'" the chief wouldn't be able to honestly respond to that question, because hardly any of them have been properly evaluated. So everybody is kind of flying by the seat of their pants, or making decisions based on overblown claims about the effectiveness of these various training programs. Therefore, whether they are reacting in an effective way to these events is hard to know.

Right now, for obvious reasons, the pendulum is focused very much on what the police can do to improve their credibility in the community. 20 years ago, when crime rates were high, the focus was on doing anything they could to reduce the crime rate. What police departments ultimately have to do is to recognize that both of these values are important. It's important that they do things to help make the community safe. But it is also important that they do things in a way that leaves the community with confidence and trust in them, and to keep in mind that sometimes these two different objectives can wind up being in conflict. They've got to balance these two objectives, and know that one shouldn't have the status to trump the other. The idea is not to have a safe police state. The idea is to have a safe democratic society.

MC: In your research and experience in this area, are there certain strategies that law enforcement officials can use to prevent these situations from occurring?

DN: It is clear that police presence at places where there is a lot of crime-I call this the "sentinel" role in policing-can be very effective in preventing crime. A simple analogy is that nobody is going to rob a liquor store if a cop is standing right outside. The key for police officers is using that presence to interact with citizens in a way that doesn't create conflict.

MC: Do you think there is any hope in solving this challenge?

DN: I am optimistic and hopeful that the current tensions will recede. But it is important to keep in mind that, over the long haul, these things are not going to be resolved unless resources are committed to having good measurement systems to collect quality data on what the police are doing in regard to the use of force. The necessary resources also have to be committed to generally having better data systems for monitoring how communities feel about the police, and to developing training systems where police are trained to use to what are known to be effective methods both for improving community trust, and also for preventing crime. Good intentions alone are not going to make our communities safe and solve the problem of citizen distrust of the police in some communities.

Learn more about Daniel Nagin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police, Violence, and Data: The Black Lives Matter Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Michael Cunningham A conversation about the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the legacy that sparked it, with one of the world's leading experts on policing Professor Daniel Nagin is the 2014 recipient of the prestigious Stockholm Prize on Criminology, an elected fellow of the American Society of Criminology, and the Teresa and H.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has been very, very good for the cause of religious freedom in recent years. This summer alone, it sided with religious students, parents and employers in a trifecta of major rulings.

The high court has been kind to the cause of LGBTQ rights as well, granting same-sex marriage rights in 2015 and protection against employment discrimination this past June.

On Wednesday, both of those winning streaks will be on the line. Hours after the polls close on Election Day and with a new justice on the bench, the court will be confronted by a case in which one side has to lose.

At issue is the city of Philadelphia's decision to stop referring children in need of foster care to Catholic Social Services, for decades one of its most reliable contract agencies, after discovering that it would not place kids with same-sex couples.

The dispute pits the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom against government bans on discrimination. When the court faced a similar case in 2018 involving a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, it issued a minor ruling that failed to resolve the question.

This time, the addition of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett gives the court's conservatives a 6-3 majority, putting at risk a 30-year-old Supreme Court precedent that made it difficult for religious groups to avoid neutral laws that apply to everyone. Several justices are eager to overturn the precedent - written, ironically, in 1990 by conservative Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
More: New Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett could have immediate impact on American democracy
In recent years, the court has carved out protections for religious groups and individuals. It ruled that a Missouri church could receive federal funds, private corporations could avoid federal health care regulations regarding contraceptives, and a New York town board could open meetings with Christian prayers.

This year, the justices approved taxpayer support for religious education in some circumstances and let religious employers sidestep job discrimination laws and health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
More: Supreme Court grants federal job protections to gay, lesbian, transgender workers
The court refused to let employers discriminate against LGBTQ workers in a 6-3 ruling in June, but even then Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch reiterated the justices' respect for religious liberty.

"We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution," he wrote. "That guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society."
More: Supreme Court to decide if foster care agencies can snub gay, lesbian couples due to religious objections
200-year history of service

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been serving abused, neglected and orphaned children for more than 200 years. But in 2018, the city learned from a local newspaper article that Catholic Social Services' policy did not allow placements with same-sex couples, so it blocked the agency from making new placements on anti-discrimination grounds.

The foster care agency sued, but two lower federal courts refused to block the city's action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled unanimously that the agency "failed to make a persuasive showing that the city targeted it for its religious beliefs or is motivated by ill will against its religion, rather than sincere opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

"The city stands on firm ground in requiring its contractors to abide by its non-discrimination policies when administering public services," the court said.

In asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, Catholic Social Services argued that under the city's policy, the archdiocese would have to violate its sincerely held beliefs.

"Philadelphia demands that a religious agency, an arm of a church, speak and act according to Philadelphia's beliefs," said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Catholic Social Services in court. "If it does not, Philadelphia will rid itself of the meddlesome agency. The Free Exercise Clause was made for cases like this one."

Sharonell Fulton, for whom the case is named, has worked with Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia to foster 40 children over 26 years. In a video posted on Becket's website, she said her goal is to "show them some love, be there when they need you."

"This is what I want to do, and I wouldn't be able to do it without Catholic Social Services," she said.

The Trump administration also is opposing the city policy, but it does not argue that the court should overrule its precedent. As was the case with the Colorado baker, the Justice Department says the court can rule more narrowly for Catholic Social Services, perhaps based on city officials' hostility.

'Stand up for these kids'

Philadelphia told the court it is eager to have the agency back as a full partner in recruiting and certifying foster homes, but only if it abides by "the same nondiscrimination requirement as every other agency." In the meantime, the agency can continue to manage group homes and provide other social services to foster children.

"The Constitution does not grant CSS the right to dictate the terms on which it carries out the government's work," wrote Neal Katyal, a former U.S. acting solicitor general representing the city.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing a legal services agency and an LGBTQ family advocacy group in the case, says a religious exemption for foster care could endanger other programs, such as after-school care, food banks and homeless shelters.

Advocates for foster children also note that a large number of children needing foster care are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, making it illogical to exclude LGBTQ couples from the program.

"Religious beliefs should not come before the needs of children," said Stephanie Haynes, executive director of Philadelphia Family Pride.

The issue has arisen elsewhere. In Greenville, South Carolina, Brandy Welch and Eden Rogers sought to foster children through Miracle Hill Ministries, the state's largest provider of homeless services. As a same-sex married couple, they were rejected.

Now they are among people on both sides of the emotionally charged issue whose stories are told in scores of friend of the court briefs to the Supreme Court.

"I couldn't just take a 'no,' because it wasn't just a no to me or my wife, it was a no to hundreds of children," Rogers said. "I felt an overwhelming need to just stand up for these kids."

Welch, who grew up in a conservative, Christian home, said the foster care system also needs families in which gay, lesbian or transgender children would be welcome.

"I can only imagine how many kids are LGBTQ in the system that end up in Christian homes where they may not be able to be themselves," she said.
More: Amy Coney Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies More: Amy Coney Barrett: Talented judge, popular professor brings solid conservative credentials
'Enormous implications'

Both religious freedom and LGBTQ rights were hot topics last month at Barrett's Senate confirmation hearing.

Republicans lauded her devout Catholicism and personal opposition to abortion, which she said would not influence her legal opinions. Democrats claimed her association with groups that fight for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws represents a risk for gay rights.

For her part, Barrett described her faith as important, but irrelevant to her jurisprudence. As for LGBTQ rights, she said, "I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."

The phrase "sexual preference" got her in hot water with the LGBTQ community, because scientific research has shown sexual orientation is not a choice. In response, she said, "I certainly didn't mean, and would never mean, to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community."

While the Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings against discrimination and in support of LGBTQ rights in recent years, several conservative justices have voiced concern that religious freedom was trampled in the process.

Four of the court's conservatives - Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh - wrote in 2019 that the Employment Division v. Smith opinion from 1990 "drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause."

And just last month, Thomas and Alito wrote that as a result of the 2015 same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, "those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, said Barrett's replacement of the late liberal Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg increases the chance that the court eventually will overrule its 1990 precedent. That could lead to broad religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, he said, making the foster case one with "enormous implications for people's lives."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More conservative Supreme Court faces major dispute pitting religious freedom against LGBTQ rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has been very, very good for the cause of religious freedom in recent years. This summer alone, it sided with religious students, parents and employers in a trifecta of major rulings. The high court has been kind to the cause of LGBTQ rights as well, granting same-sex marriage rights in 2015 and protection against employment discrimination this past June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debunking the Myth of "Concealed-Carry Killers"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Violence Policy Center-a gun control advocacy group-released a study last month it wrongly claims shows that "too many concealed-carry permit holders are a direct threat to public safety." That claim rests on an analysis of a database documenting "non-self-defense incidents," which the organization says proves that "allowing random people to carry guns endangers public safety."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political Polarization in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Explainer defines the term political polarization and provides information on how it impacts US politics and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black Lives Matter protests continue nearly two months after the death of George Floyd, who died after a white Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck.

Floyd's death sparked worldwide demonstrations that brought thousands to the streets, and people are still out there, including Miski Noor, an organizer and activist with Black Visions Collective.

Noor has been on the streets of Minneapolis every day since Floyd was killed. All four police officers involved in Floyd's death have been charged, and now protesters have their eye on a larger goal - defunding, and eventually abolishing, the police.

When activists say they want to abolish the police, they "100%" mean they want no more police, Noor says.

"What we're saying is that whatever it is that we're envisioning together to move toward is much safer than what currently exists," she says, "because what currently exists is a police system that is entrenched in and comes from slave catching and union busting and that is incapable of keeping so many of us in mostly marginalized communities safe."

The Minneapolis city council unanimously pledged to abolish the city's police force last month and replace it with a "Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention."

Abolishing the police force will require amending the city's charter, and activists are in the process of putting an amendment on the ballot in November, Noor says. According to a draft amendment, the new department would consist of peace officers working to ensure public safety through "a holistic, public health-oriented approach."

The idea of defunding the police has caught the attention of other governments across the country, with many leaders pledging to reallocate funds meant for the police force into other initiatives, such as mental health services. But the movement has also drawn ire from critics, who say getting rid of police will lead to more violence.

"Of course, people are scared, but our people don't know life without police ... and can't imagine it in so many ways," Noor says. "So as organizers and as abolitionists, it's our responsibility to hold people in their fear and then ask them the questions of what actually [does] keep them safe."

Activists who support police abolition point to statistics that show where police haven't been effective in curbing violence. They say marginalized communities are overpoliced but they still experience an undue amount of violence.

In Minneapolis for example, reporters at the Star Tribune found that in 2019 only 56% of homicide cases were solved by police. In 2016, the Minneapolois police cleared only 22% of rape cases.

Noor also points to a specific example where the police responded but didn't act.

"I was involved in the 18-day police occupation of the fourth police precinct when Jamar Clark was murdered. It's about to be the fifth year anniversary of his murder this coming November," she says. "And while we were protesting, white supremacists came and shot at us, and five people were shot and the police were right there and did nothing."

Ahead of the upcoming election, many conservatives are using the movement to defund the police to discredit Democrats. Noor says she is not concerned about alienating people because this moment is different.

"Now it's a different world. We're inside of a pandemic, and inside of that, there's been police terror, which has led to an uprising," she says. "And a lot of that is because of the missteps and poor decision-making of the current president, and the voters and the people will reckon with him for that."
Marcelle Hutchins produced and edited this interview for broadcast with Tinku Ray. Samantha Raphelson adapted it for the web.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Lives Matter protests continue nearly two months after the death of George Floyd, who died after a white Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck. Floyd's death sparked worldwide demonstrations that brought thousands to the streets, and people are still out there, including Miski Noor, an organizer and activist with Black Visions Collective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year since the 1969 Stonewall riots, the month of June has been dedicated to celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) culture and history. Fifty years ago, there was effectively no public support for LGBTQ rights, and today, marriage equality is the law of the land. Between these two ends of the spectrum lies a rich history of fighting for equality in virtually every area of public life. Yet all too often overlooked in the queer narrative is the fact that students of sexual and gender minorities are among the most underserved demographics, despite growing visibility in recent years. What's more, these students' safety and rights are constantly at risk. This June, as we celebrate how far we've come, it's worth taking critical stock of the victories and challenges that shape the modern LGBTQ student experience.

The past 10 years have seen an effective push from advocates at the state and local levels for comprehensive, or enumerated, anti-bullying policies in K-12 schools. Eighteen states have enumerated policies, which protect students from harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have nondiscrimination laws, and more are following suit as state legislatures see a groundswell of support.

But some hurdles remain, of course, and they're quite dizzying. Of the states that aren't in the enumeration process, seven still have laws on the books that expressly forbid teachers from discussing gay and transgender issues. These types of laws-commonly, and derisively, known as "No Promo Homo" laws-sometimes prohibit teachers from even saying "LGBTQ" aloud in the classroom. Only Utah, a state where 64 percent of the population is considered "highly religious," has repealed its No Promo Homo law, and only in March of this year.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, with some of the country's most inclusive protections, is California, which recently became the first state to adopt an inclusive K-12 history and social science curriculum. What does this mean? History lessons there now cover key milestones in the fight for LGBTQ equality, as well as important historical figures and the evolution of LGBTQ identities over time. While inclusive curricula may be taught in other parts of the country, no other state requires them-and in No Promo Homo states, teachers could be fired for using them.

LGBTQ students have seen gains outside the classroom, too. More than 1,000 gay-straight alliances (GSAs) have been created over the past decade in public, private, and charter schools. GSAs are student-led clubs that provide a supportive environment for LGBTQ students and their allies. And this matters because students who have a GSA in their school are more likely to feel safe in and connected to their community, less likely to miss school, and less likely to commit or attempt suicide. Crucially, the majority of these wins have been achieved by and for lesbian, gay, and bi students and advocates.

That said, the rights of students of gender minorities, as opposed to sexual minorities, remain hotly contested, as states cope with ever-changing federal rules regarding transgender students' status. Most infamously, some states have tried to regulate transgender students' right to use school facilities with "bathroom bills," which force students to use the restroom corresponding to the biological sex they were assigned at birth. In 2016, the Obama administration issued guidance overruling districts who enforced such policies. Early this year, however, the Trump administration rescinded this guidance, allowing districts-once again-to force transgender students to use the incorrect bathroom. Research shows that forcing students to use certain facilities doesn't reduce violence, as some suggest, but rather victimizes transgender students and makes them more susceptible to health problems that result from not using the bathroom.

But the transgender student experience is shaped by more than just misinformed bathroom rules. Last month, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network released a report detailing issues that plague transgender students in K-12 schools. Specifically, 75 percent of transgender students reported feeling unsafe at school, 50 percent couldn't use the name or pronouns that match their identity, and 28 percent couldn't wear clothing of their choice. These numbers are even higher for transgender students of color. Particularly for students in rural and religious communities, the outlook isn't likely to improve unless explicit federal protections are put in place.

Fortunately, for transgender students-and LGBTQ students more broadly-who attend college, campuses are generally considered safe spaces. According to Campus Explorer, 38 colleges offer gender-neutral housing options for LGBTQ students, and many colleges have gender-neutral bathrooms on campuses. Gender-neutral housing is a system that allows students to select roommates without regard to their sex or gender. Many universities are also allowing students to use gender-neutral pronouns in their registries and are making it easier for students to adjust their names and pronouns in university databases and official documents, such as diplomas. LGBTQ, Gender, and Women's Studies departments have also cropped up at many institutions, including the University of Arizona's inaugural program for Transgender Studies.

College Associations are also working to ensure protections and support for LGBTQ students. Last spring, for example, the NCAA stipulated that campuses who want to host NCAA events must prove they have protections in place for the rights of LGBTQ athletes and event attendees. The policy made waves when the NCAA banned NC State from hosting the NCAA March Madness tournament in response to the state's HB2 law.

So where are the next battle lines for LGBTQ equality on campuses?

Well, despite all the programs, policies, and systems that have been created to protect LGBTQ students in higher education, there is still a lot of work to be done. The NCAA has been inconsistent in enforcing its initially-celebrated policy, and Campus Explorer reports that one in five LGBTQ college students "fear for their physical safety due to their gender identity or their perceived sexual orientation." LGBTQ students are also more likely than their straight counterparts to be the victims of harassment or sexual assault on college campuses-an alarming trend given the already-high rates of sexual assault for the general college population.

The potential repeal of the Affordable Care Act could also put LGBTQ students at risk, as they already face higher rates of health concerns and discrimination in obtaining healthcare. Many traditional college students may receive care under their parents, if their parents are covered and if there is a nearby facility that will serve them-something that isn't typically hard for most straight people to find. LGBTQ students, on the other hand, must be out to their families, must be accepted by their families, must have families who are covered, and must live near a facility that will serve them. Outside of liberal urban areas, this isn't the norm for most LGBTQ students.

Unsurprisingly, student health coverage, official university policies, and inclusive curricula aren't usually the focus of Pride month. At least in part, this is because the mythical notion of a post-marriage equality world has permeated even progressive circles, giving the impression that we've achieved true equality. But a quick lesson in public education or any area affecting it, such as healthcare, shows that this isn't the case. LGBTQ students' experiences are nuanced and complex, affected by individual circumstances and intersectional social identities, and include new challenges every day. While fair treatment has, on the whole, increased for these students over the past 20 years, continuing this momentum during the Trump administration will take fierce public support and a belief that all students deserve to be safe and accepted.

So while we continue to celebrate the victories of the movement this Pride Month, keep in mind how far we've come-and how far we have left to go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBTQ Rights on Campuses Through the Decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year since the 1969 Stonewall riots, the month of June has been dedicated to celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) culture and history. Fifty years ago, there was effectively no public support for LGBTQ rights, and today, marriage equality is the law of the land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The longest government shutdown in history ended in January, 2019. Once rare, government shutdowns have become more frequent, as the major parties fail to compromise enough to even keep the federal government funded and open. The shutdowns are one consequence of rising social and political polarization in the United States.

Polarization is not the same as disagreement about how to solve public policy problems, which is healthy and natural in a democracy. Polarization is about more than just having a different opinion than your neighbor about certain issues. Polarization occurs when we refuse to live next to a neighbor who doesn't share our politics, or when we won't send our children to a racially integrated school. The force that empowers polarization is tribalism: clustering ourselves into groups that compete against each other in a zero-sum game where negotiation and compromise are perceived as betrayal, whether those groups are political, racial, economic, religious, gender, or generational.

The impact isn't limited to politics. Research shows that polarization is affecting families, workplaces, schools, neighborhoods, and religious organizations, stressing the fabric of our society. Antagonism might feel necessary in conditions of injustice-many Americans would agree, for example, that polarization needed to happen when the South clung to slavery. But being aware of the price we all pay for polarization might motivate us to reduce it, before the worst effects take hold. Here's a list of reasons why Americans should strive to avoid worsening social and political antagonism-and to build bridges with each other.

1. We're segregated in our own communities. Americans are increasingly segregating themselves by political party and ideology even in their residential communities. This segregation makes us more likely to demonize each other, as more and more people live alongside people who hold similar political beliefs to them.

2. Our political culture is more and more antagonistic. Our political campaigns have become increasingly negative, focused more on tearing down our opponents than building up support for our own ideas. During the 1960 presidential campaign, only around 10 percent of political advertisements aired were negative; by 2012, only around 14 percent of campaign ads were positive.

3. We judge and loathe members of other political parties. While political disagreement is normal in a democracy, personally demonizing our opponents is not. 2016 Pew polling found that 47 percent of Republicans said that Democrats are more "immoral" than other Americans; 35 percent of Democrats held that view about Republicans. Our social network segregation may be making these feelings worse: Republicans with "few or no Democratic friends are twice as likely" to rate Democrats coldly than Republicans who have some Democratic friends.

4. Our families are being undermined. A recent study found that Thanksgiving dinners were significantly shorter in areas where Americans share meals across party lines. The effect was worse in areas with heavy political advertising. The researchers estimated that 34 million person-hours of cross-partisan discourse were eliminated in 2016 thanks to this polarization effect.

5. We're less likely to help each other out. Several studies suggest that contact across social classes seems to promote well-being and kind and helpful behaviors like gratitude and generosity. This research suggests it's bad for everyone's well-being when the rich don't have contact with the poor, or the poor with the middle class.

6. Our physical health is probably suffering. Research has shown that racism has a terrible impact on the health and well-being of its targets. Perhaps more surprisingly, studies find that individuals who harbor racial prejudices and fears experience elevated levels of stress and other physiological responses that, over time, can wear down their muscles and damage their immune systems. When racial antagonism goes up, everyone suffers.

7. We're more and more stressed out. In the two years that have passed since the 2016 election, an increasing number of Americans now say it's " stressful and frustrating " to talk about politics with people they disagree with. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Americans, the change is most profound, with 45 percent saying it was stressful to talk to the other side in March of 2016, but 57 percent saying so by October 2018.

8. We feel pressure to conform in our groups. Polarization doesn't just manifest as intergroup conflict. It also changes the dynamics within groups, as members feel more pressure to conform in their beliefs and actions, which makes internal dissent and diversity less likely. In a 2016 paper, " The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions," three political scientists note that in polarized situations we feel intense "social pressure to think and act in ways that are consistent with important group identities." Instead of thinking for ourselves, we tend to reason "toward conclusions that reinforce existing loyalties rather than conclusions that objective observers might deem 'correct.'"

9. Deception is more likely. Lying is often condemned when committed inside a group-but people tend to see deception as valid when in conflict with another group. These kinds of lies are called " blue lies" by researchers. "People condone lying against enemy nations, and since many people now see those on the other side of American politics as enemies, they may feel that lies, when they recognize them, are appropriate means of warfare," says George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University.

10. Gridlock is damaging our government institutions. In the halls of the U.S. Senate, the filibuster was once a rarely-used mechanism to force a prolonged debate about a piece of legislation (as romanticized in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). But today, even routine judicial appointments are subjects of controversy, and the filibuster is regularly invoked in a partisan way to promote gridlock, obstructing legislation that serves the public interest. Researchers have noted that the 112th Congress, for instance, passed fewer laws than any Congress stretching back to the 1800s.

11. Our pocketbooks are hurting. The aforementioned government shutdowns are costly. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the shutdown between December and January cost the economy $11 billion -to say nothing of the terrible impact on individuals who work for the government.

12. We're losing trust in key institutions. Some people are losing faith in institutions that were once trusted by a broad swath of the American public. For instance, political parties are now polarized over whether they even trust higher education, which provides the bedrock of educational and research support for much of American civic and business life. Even the faculty at these universities are now polarized, with little political diversity among professors. This is also true, to different degrees, for the press, the military, libraries, and other institutions that were once "big tents" for many kinds of Americans.

13. It's hard for us to solve problems even when we do agree. For many of the issues we think of as most polarizing-like guns or immigration-there is actually wide consensus among the public about what sort of policies we should pursue. For instance, 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. And yet our polarized Congress, and a media environment that treats gun issues as a zero-sum game between gun owners and gun control activists, elude that consensus. On issue after issue, Americans are closer than they appear, but our polarization prevents us from seeing that.

14. Violence is more likely. In polarized situations, we stop seeing people in competing groups as human beings-and that is very dangerous. Since the 2016 election, hate crimes have risen and more Americans seem to be endorsing the idea of intergroup violence. One 2018 study linked these trends to "partisan identity strength"-how much being Democrat or Republican is part of who we are. "It makes sense that as an identity grows stronger, and conflict intensifies, people will begin to approve of violence," says political scientist Lilliana Mason.

What are the solutions? We've already explored many here at Greater Good, from facilitating more intergroup contact to changing the way we talk to each other over social media and in real life-and we will continue to identify and promote solutions through our new Bridging Differences project. In the meantime, don't give up hope. America has been more polarized in the past than we are today, which means that a better future is possible.

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your opinions or behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the True Cost of Polarization in America?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If Americans don't learn to build bridges with each other, we may see more government shutdowns, lying, segregation-and even violence.

# data[].attributes.body
Possibly too left sided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
polarization is poisoning america. here's an antidote (opinion)  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Polarization is poisoning America. Here's an antidote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deepening fractures among us are threatening the life of American democracy, writes John Avlon. It's time to fight back, he says, with the knowledge that we are defending core American values -- because e pluribus unum is literally the opposite of "Us against Them," the demagogue's eternal calling card.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Militia leader Ammon Bundy, famous for leading an armed standoff in Oregon, had a tender moment in November of last year. He recorded a Facebook post saying that perhaps President Trump's characterization of the migrant caravan on the U.S.-Mexico border was somewhat broad. Maybe they weren't all criminals, he said. "What about those who have come here for reasons of need?"

Bundy did not say he was breaking with Trump. He just asked his followers to put themselves in the shoes of "the fathers, the mothers, the children" who came to escape violence. It was a call for a truce grounded in empathy, the kind you might hear in a war zone, say, or an Easter Sunday sermon. Still, it was met with a swift and rageful response from his followers, so overwhelming that within days, Bundy decided to quit Facebook.

In an earlier era, Bundy's appeal might have resonated. But he failed to tune in to a critical shift in American culture - one that a handful of researchers have been tracking, with some alarm, for the past decade or so. Americans these days seem to be losing their appetite for empathy, especially the walk-a-mile-in-someone's-shoes Easter Sunday morning kind.

When I was growing up in the '70s, empathy was all the rage. The term was coined in 1908; then, social scientists and psychologists started more aggressively pushing the concept into the culture after World War II, basically out of fear. The idea was that we were all going to kill each other with nuclear weapons - or learn to see the world through each other's eyes. In my elementary school in the 1970s, which was not progressive or mushy in any way, we wrote letters to pretend Russian pen pals to teach us to open our hearts to our enemies.

And not just enemies. Civil rights activists had also picked up on the idea. Kenneth Clark, a social scientist and civil rights activist, half-jokingly proposed that people in power all be required to take an "empathy pill" so they could make better decisions. His hope was that people with power and privilege would one day inhabit the realities of people without power, not from the safe, noblesse oblige distance of pity, but from the inside. An evolved person was an empathetic person, choosing understanding over fear.

Then, more than a decade ago, a certain suspicion of empathy started to creep in, particularly among young people. One of the first people to notice was Sara Konrath, an associate professor and researcher at Indiana University. Since the late 1960s, researchers have surveyed young people on their levels of empathy, testing their agreement with statements such as: "It's not really my problem if others are in trouble and need help" or "Before criticizing somebody I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place."

Konrath collected decades of studies and noticed a very obvious pattern. Starting around 2000, the line starts to slide. More students say it's not their problem to help people in trouble, not their job to see the world from someone else's perspective. By 2009, on all the standard measures, Konrath found, young people on average measure 40 percent less empathetic than my own generation - 40 percent!

It's strange to think of empathy - a natural human impulse - as fluctuating in this way, moving up and down like consumer confidence. But that's what happened. Young people just started questioning what my elementary school teachers had taught me.

Their feeling was: Why should they put themselves in the shoes of someone who was not them, much less someone they thought was harmful? In fact, cutting someone off from empathy was the positive value, a way to make a stand.

So, for example, when the wife of white nationalist Richard Spencer recently told BuzzFeed he had abused her, the question debated on the lefty Internet was: Why should we care that some woman who chose to ally herself with a nasty racist got herself hurt? Why waste empathy on that? (Spencer, in a court filing, denies all her allegations.)

The new rule for empathy seems to be: reserve it, not for your "enemies," but for the people you believe are hurt, or you have decided need it the most. Empathy, but just for your own team. And empathizing with the other team? That's practically a taboo.

And it turns out that this brand of selective empathy is a powerful force.

In the past 20 years, psychologists and neurologists have started to look at how empathy actually works, in our brains and our hearts, when we're not thinking about it. And one thing they've found is that "one of the strongest triggers for human empathy is observing some kind of conflict between two other parties," says Fritz Breithaupt, a professor at Indiana University who studies empathy. "Once they take the side, they're drawn into that perspective. And that can lead to very strong empathy and too strong polarization with something you only see this one side and not the other side any longer."

A classic example is the Super Bowl, or any Auburn, Alabama game.

But these days in the news, examples come up every day: the Kavanaugh hearings, emergency funding for a wall, Spike Lee walking out of the Oscars, the Barr report, Kirstjen Nielsen, every third thing on Twitter.

Researchers who study empathy have noticed that it's actually really hard to do what we were striving for in my generation: empathize with people who are different than you are, much less people you don't like. But if researchers set up a conflict, people get into automatic empathy overdrive, with their own team. This new research has scrambled notions of how empathy works as a force in the world. For example, we often think of terrorists as shockingly blind to the suffering of innocents. But Breithaupt and other researchers think of them as classic examples of people afflicted with an "excess of empathy. They feel the suffering of their people."

Breithaupt called his new book The Dark Sides of Empathy, because there's a point at which empathy doesn't even look like the kind of universal empathy I was taught in school. There is a natural way that empathy gets triggered in the brain - your pain centers light up when you see another person suffering. But out in the world it starts to look more like tribalism, a way to keep reinforcing your own point of view and blocking out any others.

Breithaupt is alarmed at the apparent new virus of selective empathy and how it's deepening divisions. If we embrace it, he says, then "basically you give up on civil society at that point. You give up on democracy. Because if you feed into this division more and you let it happen, it will become so strong that it becomes dangerous."

We can't return to my generation's era of empathy innocence, because we now know too much about how the force actually works. But we can't give up on empathy either, because empathy is "90 percent what our life is all about," Breithaupt says. "Without it, we would be just alone."

In his book Breithaupt proposes an ingenious solution: give up on the idea that when we are "empathizing" we are being altruistic, or helping the less fortunate, or in any way doing good. What we can do when we do empathy, proposes Fritz, is help ourselves. We can learn to see the world through the eyes of a migrant child and a militia leader and a Russian pen pal purely so we can expand our own imaginations, and make our own minds richer. It's selfish empathy. Not saintly, but better than being alone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Militia leader Ammon Bundy, famous for leading an armed standoff in Oregon, had a tender moment in November of last year. He recorded a Facebook post saying that perhaps President Trump's characterization of the migrant caravan on the U.S.-Mexico border was somewhat broad. Maybe they weren't all criminals, he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you find yourself fighting with a friend over politics, or frustrated and furious with your nearest and dearest over whom they're supporting for president, you're hardly alone. A recent survey shows just how much the nation's bitter political divide is causing social splintering and taking a toll on friendships. Even decades-long relationships have been caving under the pressure, giving new meaning to "social distancing."

"I did straight up say, 'Dude, I'm done. Lose my number,' " said Shama Davis from Los Angeles, recalling when he "unfriended" a guy he'd been friends with since high school 25 years ago.

"I just hung up on my end and proceeded to just block him in every possible way," said Joni Jensen from New York, still fuming over the guy she felt compelled to dump.

And betraying just a tinge of regret about cutting off his cousins, Ricardo Deforest of Tampa, Fla., conceded, "I hate to say it because family is everything," before unabashedly proclaiming, "I disowned them. In my mind they're not family anymore."

They are among the many Americans for whom political rifts have deepened. It's one thing to disagree about something such as tax policy, they said. But they see their differences now as ones of basic morality, core values and character, and thatcannot be overlooked.

Davis, 42, a consultant who is Black, said he simply could not abide his friend downplaying police brutality, and harping instead on the looting and violence happening amid the mostly peaceful protests.

"I told him, 'If this is your attitude, we can't be cool anymore,' " Davis said. " 'I don't respect you now. I don't. Because people are really dying.' "

Jensen, a retired professor, also sees it as a moral absolute. As a sexual assault survivor, she said, she couldn't stand it when the guy she'd been close to for 40 years was being cavalier about the allegations against President Trump's then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. ( Kavanaugh vehemently denied the sexual assault allegations.)

"He was going off like, 'Oh, you drank the Kool-Aid,' and 'Kavanaugh didn't do anything,' " she recalled. "It made me sick. If this is his core ethics, I don't want that kind of person in my life."

Conservatives can be just as quick to spurn the liberals in their lives who clash with their core values, such as life and liberty - which is the biggie for Deforest.

"They sold our country out," Deforest, a 61-year-old steelworker, said of those on the left of the political spectrum. "This election is about the soul of what America is. You can't be a free country and be a socialist state at the same time."

He said the acrimony he's feeling from what he calls "hardcore Trump haters" was as much a factor in his decision to cut them off as their differences that gave rise to it.

"All they can do is say, 'Trump is a racist. Orange man bad! Orange man racist! They're blowing spittle, and [their] veins popping out of their heads," he said. " Yo soy Latino. But [they assume] I'm some sort of horrible racist because I like Trump. It's ridiculous!"

Jocelyn Kiley, associate director of research at the Pew Research Center, said political polarizationis more intense now than at any point in modern history. Nearly 80% of Americans now have "just a few" or no friends at all across the aisle, according to Pew. And the animosity goes both ways.

"Democrats are a little bit more likely to say they'd end a friendship" Kiley said. "But Republicans may be less likely to say they have friends on the other side. So it may not be all that differential."

Another recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that 8 in 10 Republicans believe the Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists, while 8 in 10 Democrats believe the Republican Party has been taken over by racists. The report is aptly named titled "Dueling Realities."

Tania Israel, a professor in the counseling, clinical and school psychology department at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said she's seeing more of those kinds of distorted views in the workshops she runs on cross-the-aisle conversations. The rancor is rising, she said, as both sides "tend to view the other as being more extreme than they actually are."

Another thing conservatives and liberals have in common, she said, is that they all suffer from big blind spots when it comes to the morality of their own side. They tend to view themselves as eminently fair and right, and the other side as irrational.

Case in point: Explaining his politics, Deforest noted, "When I say all these things, I think I sound fairly reasonable," while declaiming the other side with, "There's something wrong with these people."

Jensen, meanwhile, is just as certain, upbraiding the guy she was arguing with as "brainwashed."

A little more listening to understand, a little less trying to convince, and a lot more intellectual humility would do everyonea world of good, said Israel, who's also the author of Beyond Your Bubble: How to Connect Across the Political Divide, Skills and Strategies for Conversations That Work.

"We're flattening people out in terms of our view of them," she said, "and we're not really seeing the full complexity of people on the other side."

It's exactly what Jon Langford, 28, a Georgia truck driver, said he experienced when his brother, who is gay, wrongly assumed the worst about him.

"He went off on me saying essentially I'm a racist and a homophobe just because I'm a Trump supporter. No ifs, ands or buts. And he completely cut me out of his life," Langford said. They haven't spoken in years.

Now, Langford said, he's determined not to do the same thing to his friends across the aisle, including his best friend, who supports former Vice President Joe Biden. As Langford sees it, no one has a monopoly on morality.

"I could assume that anybody that supports Biden is a firm believer that it's OK to murder a baby," he said. "But I don't."

Another conservative, Judith Margolis Friedman, may be one of the few who can claim that she's managed not to lose any friends over politics. But she said that's because she kept her political views secret for fear of "social suicide."

"I would politely nod and go along to avoid conflict [...] with people whose relationships I valued," she said.

Instead, Friedman vented in a secret Facebook group that she said was a "safe space" where she could "commiserate with other people who also feel shut out from their regular life because of their views."

But this month, Friedman couldn't take it anymore and " came out of the closet," deciding that if people dumped her over her politics, "they weren't real friends after all."

She's hoping friends will give more weight to the person they've known for years, than whom she chooses to vote for.

"If someone expresses a more conservative worldview, they're immediately called a Nazi and a racist and a misogynist and a homophobe and everything under the sun," Friedman said. "I'm none of those things. I'm just a normal friggin' person who has a different point of view."

At the other end of the political spectrum, Jeff Marinstein, a business and technology consultant from Connecticut, has also been trying to get past the ever-intensifying invective and insults from "friends."

One, in particular, kept attacking him as a "libtard," among other things. Marinstein no longer talks to that guy. But with another, he's trying a new strategy to save the friendship, suggesting they keep talking, just not about politics. So far, it's proving harder to enforce than he thought.

"I'm still getting this nightly stream of New York Post articles and memes [mocking] Democrats, and I simply respond with a funny line that says, 'This post violates our agreement not to talk about politics,' trying to creatively send the message that I just don't want to engage," he said.

Whether the strategy ultimately works or not, Marinstein said, he wonders whether it may ultimately be doing as much harm as good.

"It just feels like the healthiest thing for me to do at the moment [is] to lower the temperature and to not continue these toxic conversations," he said. "But I suppose the risk is that I'm just retreating into my own information bubble with people who think just like me."

Indeed, experts said it's more conversation - not less - that's needed, if the nation is to heal its blistering divide. But it has to be healthy, productive conversation. And Israel, who runs the workshops on civil discourse, said the first step must be to take it off social media and talk in person instead.

"The only useful comment that you can make on somebody's social media post is 'Can we find a time to talk about this? I'm interested in hearing more,' " she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Dude, I'm Done': When Politics Tears Families And Friendships Apart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you find yourself fighting with a friend over politics, or frustrated and furious with your nearest and dearest over whom they're supporting for president, you're hardly alone. A recent survey shows just how much the nation's bitter political divide is causing social splintering and taking a toll on friendships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues, as rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products overwhelms the world's ability to deal with them. Plastic pollution is most visible in developing Asian and African nations, where garbage collection systems are often inefficient or nonexistent. But the developed world, especially in countries with low recycling rates, also has trouble properly collecting discarded plastics. Plastic trash has become so ubiquitous it has prompted efforts to write a global treaty negotiated by the United Nations.

Plastics made from fossil fuels are just over a century old. Production and development of thousands of new plastic products accelerated after World War II, so transforming the modern age that life without plastics would be unrecognizable today. Plastics revolutionized medicine with life-saving devices, made space travel possible, lightened cars and jets-saving fuel and pollution-and saved lives with helmets, incubators, and equipment for clean drinking water.

The conveniences plastics offer, however, led to a throw-away culture that reveals the material's dark side: today, single-use plastics account for 40 percent of the plastic produced every year. Many of these products, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, have a lifespan of mere minutes to hours, yet they may persist in the environment for hundreds of years.

Plastics by the numbers

Half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years.

Production increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons by 2015. Production is expected to double by 2050.

Every year, about 8 million tons of plastic waste escapes into the oceans from coastal nations. That's the equivalent of setting five garbage bags full of trash on every foot of coastline around the world.

Plastics often contain additives making them stronger, more flexible, and durable. But many of these additives can extend the life of products if they become litter, with some estimates ranging to at least 400 years to break down.

How plastics move around the world

Most of the plastic trash in the oceans, Earth's last sink, flows from land. Trash is also carried to sea by major rivers, which act as conveyor belts, picking up more and more trash as they move downstream. Once at sea, much of the plastic trash remains in coastal waters. But once caught up in ocean currents, it can be transported around the world.

On Henderson Island, an uninhabited atoll in the Pitcairn Group isolated halfway between Chile and New Zealand, scientists found plastic items from Russia, the United States, Europe, South America, Japan, and China. They were carried to the South Pacific by the South Pacific gyre, a circular ocean current.

Once at sea, sunlight, wind, and wave action break down plastic waste into small particles, often less than one-fifth of an inch across. These so-called microplastics are spread throughout the water column and have been found in every corner of the globe, from Mount Everest, the highest peak, to the Mariana Trench, the deepest trough.

Microplastics are breaking down further into smaller and smaller pieces. Plastic microfibers, meanwhile, have been found in municipal drinking water systems and drifting through the air.

Millions of animals are killed by plastics every year, from birds to fish to other marine organisms. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by plastics. Nearly every species of seabird eats plastics.

Most of the deaths to animals are caused by entanglement or starvation. Seals, whales, turtles, and other animals are strangled by abandoned fishing gear or discarded six-pack rings. Microplastics have been found in more than 100 aquatic species, including fish, shrimp, and mussels destined for our dinner plates. In many cases, these tiny bits pass through the digestive system and are expelled without consequence. But plastics have also been found to have blocked digestive tracts or pierced organs, causing death. Stomachs so packed with plastics reduce the urge to eat, causing starvation.

Plastics have been consumed by land-based animals, including elephants, hyenas, zebras, tigers, camels, cattle, and other large mammals, in some cases causing death.

Tests have also confirmed liver and cell damage and disruptions to reproductive systems, prompting some species, such as oysters, to produce fewer eggs. New research shows that larval fish are eating nanofibers in the first days of life, raising new questions about the effects of plastics on fish populations.

Stemming the plastic tide

Once in the ocean, it is difficult-if not impossible-to retrieve plastic waste. Mechanical systems, such as Mr. Trash Wheel, a litter interceptor in Maryland's Baltimore Harbor, can be effective at picking up large pieces of plastic, such as foam cups and food containers, from inland waters. But once plastics break down into microplastics and drift throughout the water column in the open ocean, they are virtually impossible to recover.

The solution is to prevent plastic waste from entering rivers and seas in the first place, many scientists and conservationists-including the National Geographic Society-say. This could be accomplished with improved waste management systems and recycling, better product design that takes into account the short life of disposable packaging, and reduction in manufacturing of unnecessary single-use plastics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world's plastic pollution crisis explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues, as rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products overwhelms the world's ability to deal with them. Plastic pollution is most visible in developing Asian and African nations, where garbage collection systems are often inefficient or nonexistent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transgender teens in schools with bathroom restrictions are at higher risk of sexual assault, study says - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transgender and gender nonbinary US teens -- those whose sexual identity falls outside the traditional male and female -- are at greater risk of sexual assault at schools that deny them access to bathrooms or locker rooms that match their sexual identity, according to a new study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why Bathrooms Matter to Trans People

In the battle for trans rights, controversy often swells around which bathrooms trans students are allowed to use-potentially activating long-ranging trauma and fear for trans youth.

At first blush, restroom choice may seem like a minor issue in the march toward equality for trans youth. We know trans students are victims of harassment and bullying more than their cisgender peers. We know many are occupied with navigating the complications surrounding social or physical transition. Compared to these challenges, restroom or locker room access may seem like a small thing.

But when discrimination flares up in plain sight, when students are excluded or threatened or attacked for simply being who they are, the injustice is hard to ignore. For some students, however, the hurt may not make the news.

We may not see that hurt, but it happens nonetheless. It happens each time a trans student is mocked for using the locker room that aligns with their identity, each time they're coldly informed they're in the wrong bathroom, each time they exit a stall and are greeted by another exaggerated double take.

For trans students, the inescapable message is this: "You are different." "You are unworthy." "You do not belong here."

Yet, educators occupy a powerful space. Trans students' rights are under attack, and teachers and school staff have the authority to protect them. You can follow a few simple guidelines to affirm the rights and dignity of trans students at school.

How to Support Trans Students

Stay Current.

In the barrage of news media and constant change in the political climate, it is difficult to keep ahead of the latest updates in the bathroom access debate. Consider the refusal to be disoriented by the media muddle as a form of resistance. Arm yourself-and your students-with the facts.

Know Their Rights.

Trans students have the right to be treated according to their gender identity and to be called by the name and pronouns that match their gender identity. Additionally, they have the right not to be bullied or harassed because they are transgender or gender non-conforming, and they have the right to use the restroom or locker room that matches their gender identity.

Seek Out Truth.

If you have legal questions about how the Trump administration's interpretation of Title IX and court nominations could affect the rights of trans students and school staff, find the answers from experts at the National Center for Transgender Equality, The Transgender Law Center, The National Center for Lesbian Rights or the Sylvia Rivera Law Project.

Learn the Laws.

Educate yourself about the many laws that protect trans students from discrimination at school. In humanities classes, have students research the origins and implications of Title IX, the First Amendment, FERPA, the Equal Access Act, and their local state laws and school district policies. Show your students the power in finding out the truth.

Trust and honor the experiences of trans youth.

This is the most important guideline of all. Respect trans students' names and pronouns. Do not question their wishes, and explicitly communicate your support. As the courts continue to transform, they may need it more than ever.

To advocate for students and speak out for the rights they deserve, you can check your school policies against the law. It can take a little work to keep abreast of the increasing recognition of Title IX's protection of trans students and to follow the progression of court cases, but understanding them will allow you to make the argument that advocates best for your students-whether they're suffering from acute harassment and discrimination or bearing the brunt of daily microaggressions and all-too-commonplace transphobia.

This timeline can help you shore up your knowledge of court cases regarding transgender bathroom access and verify your understanding of the relevant legislation.

A Timeline of Trans Bathroom Access

March 2016
North Carolina's legislature passes House Bill 2, banning trans youth from using the bathroom aligned with their gender identity and restricting their access to the facility corresponding with their gender assigned at birth.

May 2016
The Departments of Justice and Education state that discriminating against transgender students because of their gender identity violates Title IX. All schools receiving federal funding must treat gender identity as a protected category-just as they must do with sex and race.

May 2016
Officials from the Justice and Education Departments issue a memo to all school districts concerning discrimination in schools. The memo announces that, unless schools uphold the Obama administration's trans-inclusive interpretation of Title IX, they risk being confronted with a lawsuit or loss of funding.

August 2016
Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas halts enforcement of the Obama administration's directive for allowing transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity. The Trump administration later decides not to intervene.

February 2017
President Trump revokes the Obama-era interpretation of Title IX that protects transgender students from discrimination based on gender, putting the Trump administration at odds with several federal courts that have concluded that Title IX does protect trans students.

May 2018
A federal judge finds in favor of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student in Virginia who sued the school board for prohibiting him from using the boys' restrooms. Gavin asserted that the school board's insistence on his using bathrooms corresponding to his biological sex constituted sex discrimination and a violation of the law.

July 2018
Federal courts rule in favor of transgender students in two cases. In Florida, a U.S. District Court ruled that, by denying Drew Adams access to the boys' room, a local school board had violated his right to equal protection of the law under the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, as well as violating Title IX. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a Pennsylvania school district's decision to implement a trans-inclusive restroom policy in the Doe v. Boyertown case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trans Rights and Bathroom Access Laws: A History Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teaching Tolerance provides free resources to educators-teachers, administrators, counselors and other practitioners-who work with children from kindergarten through high school. Educators use our materials to supplement the curriculum, to inform their practices, and to create civil and inclusive school communities where children are respected, valued and welcome participants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Angel Gonzalez prays Monday next to a makeshift memorial outside an El Paso Walmart, where a mass shooting took place on Saturday. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York. Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, previously served as the acting solicitor general of the United States.

The senseless shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, should lead every American to contemplate what to do about guns. Policymakers have largely been paralyzed, partly because the public debate has been dominated by extremes. The loudest voices on the political left seek to take away as many firearms as it can, of all kinds, and to overturn Supreme Court decisions recognizing the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The loudest voices on the political right, for their part, oppose virtually all gun regulation, both on policy and constitutional grounds, fearing that a slippery slope will lead to the abolition of firearms.

But both are wrong, because of one simple reality. And acknowledging that reality opens up the space for sensible regulation of firearms, regulation that both owners and non-owners of guns should embrace.

The reality is, guns in America aren't going away. That's because the Constitution actually does protect an individual right to keep and bear them. Certainly there was an argument to be made that the Second Amendment didn't vest individuals with any rights at all, given its reference to a "well regulated Militia." But as the Supreme Court explained in two landmark decisions, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the weight of the evidence - including the Second Amendment's textual structure and its historical context - makes clear that the right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to be confined to members of militias.

The court's recognition of an individual right to gun ownership should provide the foundation for sensible compromise on the regulation of firearms. In Heller, the justices made clear that reasonable regulations would pass constitutional muster - for example, that the court's opinion "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions" of various sorts of firearms ownership.

Liberals should take solace in those limiting constructions of the Second Amendment, and in the fact that in the 11 years since Heller came down, there simply hasn't been any judicial gutting of gun regulation across the land. More important, the same people who extol the virtues of adherence to judicial precedent when it comes to decisions such as Roe v. Wade should not be heard to urge the overruling of constitutional precedent under the Second Amendment.

Conservatives should take solace in the fact that, because of the Second Amendment and Heller, there can be no slippery slope to abolition. Guns are here to stay, and if you're a law-abiding and competent citizen, no federal or state authority will ever be able to take them away from you. You may not have the right to every conceivable type of firearm or gun-related gadget conceived of in the two-plus centuries since the nation's founding (automatic weapons, for example), but you'll have plenty to choose from.

Given all this, there's no reason that compromise can't be reached now on any number of sensible firearms regulations that could enjoy broad public support, even from many gun owners. Take, for example, bills the House passed in February. That legislation would extend the waiting period for background checks from three to 10 days and would close the gun-show loophole, which outrageously allows individuals to buy weapons without any background check whatsoever if they buy their weapons on the Internet or at gun shows. Those reforms would seem pretty basic. Extending the waiting period would have kept the Charleston, S.C., church shooter, Dylann Roof, from getting his gun; and the gun-show loophole is one that the Islamic State - yes, the Islamic State - has urged its members to exploit.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents this type of moderate gun-control legislation, and nothing about the bills would lead the country down any slippery slope. Conservatives may find aspects of the bill to criticize, such as the possibility that its coverage may be too broad, but they would do better for the public - including their gun-owning constituents - to make good-faith suggestions to improve the bill, instead of reflexively blocking it.

It's time to debate gun legislation on its merits, not to hide behind arguments about judicial precedent or slippery slopes. Recognizing that a constitutional right to gun ownership exists, but that, like other constitutional rights, it can be reasonably regulated, is a crucial first step toward returning sanity to the discussion about gun ownership.

What is true about guns is true about much else in American society today, where the loudest voices are those on the fringes, when much of the country doesn't want to hear the bickering and just wants some common-sense solutions. The framers of the Constitution designed it to be capacious enough to permit democratic debate and to embrace these practical solutions.

Brian Klaas: The world thinks America's gun laws are crazy - and they're right

The Post's View: No, Mr. Trump. Guns are the reason for mass shootings.

Paul Waldman: On guns, America is 'exceptional'

Harry Litman: A domestic terrorism statute doesn't exist. Congress must pass one - now.

Karen Tumulty: Trump has proved himself incapable of changing

Charles Lane: What all mass shootings have in common

Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | It's time to debate gun control on its merits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York. Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, previously served as the acting solicitor general of the United States. The senseless shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, should lead every American to contemplate what to do about guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article at a Glance
* Video games can be used to help improve test scores, teach life and job skills, improve brain function, and encourage physical exercise.
* Most popular video games and apps are addictive by design
* Because video game addiction can negatively impact social and physical health, parents should be aware of the symptoms.

Kids have been wild about video games for decades. But the introduction of mobile game systems and smartphone apps took that to new heights.

Mobility brought gaming into the car, the bedroom, and even to the bus stop. With roughly 95% of U.S. teens owning smartphones, it's hard to find a kid who isn't playing some kind of game.

Although video games get a lot of bad press, they do have some benefits. The trick is to strike the right balance of good content and appropriate limits. After all, video games should enhance your child's life, not take it over.

Video Game Pros:

Education

Studies have found that video games can improve learning. When video games have been used in the classroom, teachers see improved test scores. Games also allow students to learn and then apply what they have learned in a real-life situation. Medical and military training programs both use simulation-style games to teach tools and strategy.

Life Skills

Many video games teach kids how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize. Internet-enabled games that let kids play with their real-life friends often require collaboration and division of tasks to beat the level.

Improved Brain Function

Video games have been shown to help us improve our ability to reason and solve problems. They help us make split-second decisions, process information more quickly, and multitask effectively. Games can also improve hand-eye coordination and boost auditory perception.

Exercise

Motion-controlled games like the Nintendo Wii were once thought to be the answer to parental concerns about video games leading to obesity. But studies have shown these video games alone don't increase kids' overall activity level.

However, there is some hope in the form of smartphone games that encourage kids to leave the house. Pokemon Go is one example, but your kids may also enjoy the real-life treasure hunt appeal of activities like Geocaching. Some apps like The Walk, blend storytelling and exercise to get players moving.

Job Skills

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) argues that kids need to play more video games in order to be competitive in the current job market. In a report they released in 2010, the FAS said games helped teach higher-order thinking skills like problem-solving, interpretive analysis, and more.

Video Game Cons:

Violence

While every other study seems to draw opposite conclusions about the social effects of playing violent video games, studies involving brain scans are concerning.

Simply put, children playing violent video games show decreased activity in areas of the brain dedicated to self-control and an increase in emotional arousal.

Even though the debate continues, be aware of how violent games affect your children. If you notice a problem, go with your gut.

Help your children choose games you feel are appropriate. Many console game ratings include detailed information about the contents of the game's violence level, language, topics, etc.

Addiction

England's National Health Service began treating video game addiction this year, after the World Health Organization listed "gaming disorder" in its International Classification of Disease.

What makes video games addictive? Playing releases dopamine into our systems, which gives us a feeling of pleasure and tells our brain to "do it again."

As a matter of fact, video games are designed to be addictive. John Hopson, a games researcher at Microsoft Game Studios is also a doctor of behavioral and brain sciences who writes about game design.

In "Behavioral Game Design" he explained how game designers can control behavior by providing simple stimulus and rewards at strategic times and places.

Children with poor impulse control or who have a hard time fitting in are most vulnerable to game addiction. This may be because video games offer an easy way to fill the void created when real-world relationships are hard to form.

Social Replacement

Be aware of how much your children are playing video games and if it's replacing or negatively impacting other aspects of their lives.

Internet-connected games make it easy to "hang out" with friends after school without ever leaving home. But this type of virtual get-together is no replacement for actual face-to-face interaction.

Setting aside the potential problems of online predators and cyber-bullying, virtual hangouts rob kids of the opportunity to practice their social skills and to move their bodies from one house to another.

Our Role in Video Games

Video games can play a positive role in our children's lives, but we need to be there to help set limits.

If you're worried that your child is becoming too obsessed with games, then it is time to sit down and talk. Be sensitive and nonjudgmental. Try to agree on a reasonable amount of space for video games to occupy in your family life.

Enlist the help of your pediatrician if you have concerns. He or she may have great tips and can even recommend a therapist who specializes in tweens or teens.

Remember, even though video games have their place, they should occupy less time than what kids need to devote to exercising, socializing, studying, and sleeping. In our ever-more-connected world, we could all use a little more practice just being unplugged.
Signs and Symptoms of Video Game Abuse:

Falling grades

Not sleeping enough, feelings of fatigue

Free time is used almost exclusively for playing video games

Irritability when not playing video games

Neglect of hygiene

Disinterest in other activities

Increased anxiety

Reviewed on November 21, 2019 by:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids have been wild about video games for decades but video games should enhance your child's life, not take it over. Get the pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The problem of violent video games, whether there is anything good about them, or do they turn kids into potential maniacs, has been around for many years already. Yet, scientific research on the subject shows that expecting a yes/no answer to it is totally wrong: one has to consider individual traits of every person. The point is, violent video games have a different effect on different people. Read more on the subject in our article.

Society's anxiety related to such video games as "shooters" and "horrors" is quite understandable. One can't help but wonder: what happens if a gamer will try imitating a game in real life? Won't he snap and become a criminal? From time to time, there are different media reports of people who really did something terrible - and that just adds oil to the flame.

The population of Russia is about 144 million people; according to data from the Newzoo Company that does marketing research for the gaming market, 65% of its citizens play videogames. USA's population is about 320 million people; videogames are popular among half of them. Yet, there are very few cases of violence caused by gamers. So, can gamers be seen as potential aggressors?

In 2015, scientists from the American Psychological Association stated that though children who are interested in videogames are actually more aggressive, there's no proof that they will be violent in real life. The researchers also underlined that videogames are only one of several factors that can contribute to a child or adult becoming violent. Thus, upbringing plays a more important role here, believes Doctor Harold S. Koplewicz, founding president of the Child Mind Institute (USA).

Albert Safin. Credit: Social networks

"Normal people clearly understand the difference between games and reality. Surely, there are many games when you play not as the "good" SWAT against terrorists, but as maniacs and such. Yet, you don't go outside and copy the game in real life. Violent behavior can manifest in those players who already have the aptitude. This means that it is the parents' responsibility to pay more attention to their children, and raise them in such a way that they won't be aggressive. What's more, most people start playing videogames during their childhood and continue into their adult lives, some even become cyber-sportsmen and make games their profession. Anyways, gamers have already got used to such statements as "videogames can ruin your mind" and such", comments Albert Safin, second year at the Department of Intelligent Technologies in Industrial Robotics of ITMO University and captain of KronBars cybersport team.

There is still no sound proof that gamers are more aggressive. From time to time, new research appears with different data on the subject. Scientists use different approaches to their research, and check various, though similar hypotheses that can complement or controvert each other.

For example, in 2011 scientists from the Indiana University School of Medicine stated that violent videogames affect the part of the brain responsible for one's control of emotions and aggressive behavior. The study group included men only; the experiment went for 14 days. One group didn't play games at all; the other played only for one week. In the middle of the study and at the end of it, the participants underwent MRI-scanning while having a cognitive test and a game on associations that was meant to induce particular emotions. MRI images showed that "gamers" had decreased brain activity in what has to do with controlling emotions. After the second week, their results were closer to those of the non-gamer group. Thus, scientists came to the conclusion that even a small period of gaming can considerably affect the brain.

On the other hand, a recent study conducted by Hannover Medical School showed that videogames do not affect empathy, which is believed to be the key to being kind. They used the same MRI-scanning methods in studying two groups of people as in the above-mentioned research. One consisted of gamers who play "shooters" daily for no less than three hours, the other - of those who are not used to playing videogames. All participants were to watch images depicting violence during an MRI-scan. The results didn't show any difference in the brain activity of the two groups. What's more, the participants showed similar results in a psychological survey.

Another popular subject of research is what gamers feel while playing. Scientists from the University at Buffalo (USA) found that only novice gamers experience guilt for what they do in violent video games. Yet, the more they play, the weaker the guilt is. With time, they become indifferent - not only in what has to do with one particular game, but games in general. Gamers state that they see violent actions in virtual space as taking a piece on a chessboard: no one mourns for some pawn or queen. This may be because gamers and those who don't play see the "battlefield" differently. The latter see it as some irregular bloodbath, while the player has his objectives, and doesn't really pay attention to how he achieves them. This doesn't mean that gamers become indifferent to violence, it is just that they have gotten used to it and perceive it differently, underline the scientists.

Understanding the objectives in a game - and the objective of a game - is a really important issue. There is a lot of research that shows that people perceive games differently, and games affect them differently, as well. For instance, a research by Texas Tech University showed that videogames can mitigate defenselessness from bad test scores and motivate the gamer to succeed. Yet, this works only for those gamers who really aim at beating games - those who mostly enjoy the process are indifferent to success in real life, as well. Point is, playing games affects gamers differently: some will get the energy and motivation to correct their mishaps, others will try to hide from reality.

Videogames, especially 3D games, can even improve one's memory. Scientists from the University of California conducted the following experiment: two groups of students were to play videogames for 30 minutes each day for two weeks. One group played 2D games, the other - 3D games. After that, they were given a test: to arrange images in an order they had to memorize. The second group's results were 12% better. Thus, scientists assume that videogames can become an effective way to treating degenerative disorders in elderly patients.

Also, games have a better effect on academic performance than spending time in social networks, state researchers from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. They've analyzed data for 12 thousand 15-year-olds, including their grades in Math, literature and sciences. They've also considered the time they spend on online-games and Facebook. Research showed that those who play games are better at Math and sciences, while those who prefer spending time in social networks show poor results.

"Videogames, especially shooters, improve one's concentration and attention. They make you notice small details, analyze your opponents' actions and plan yours - and do it very quickly. Also, if you're a captain, you learn to work with a team, manage other people", comments Albert Safin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
videogames and violence: the pro’s and con’s of gaming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Videogames and Violence: the Pro's and Con's of Gaming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The problem of violent video games, whether there is anything good about them, or do they turn kids into potential maniacs, has been around for many years already. Yet, scientific research on the subject shows that expecting a yes/no answer to it is totally wrong: one has to consider individual traits of every person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Neuroethics Viewpoint

Author:
Philip M. Boffey
Published:
November 1, 2019

A long-standing debate over whether violence depicted in video games can trigger real-world violence has taken on renewed vigor in the wake of mass shootings in recent years. The gunman who killed 22 people and injured 24 others at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on August 3 made a fleeting reference to video game soldiers, indicating that he was familiar with video violence, and many politicians were quick to blame video games for this and other mass shootings. Yet it seems clear that the El Paso gunman was primarily motivated by ethnic hatred. His manifesto said the attack was "a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas."

The main reason to worry about video games is a slew of studies claiming to find a link between violence in video games and real-world aggression, but countervailing studies have found no persuasive link. The main reason to be skeptical of a causal link is that video games have spread widely around the world without driving other countries to the levels of violence in this country.

Then there is the question of what can be done to sanitize video violence without violating First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has applied to works of art, films, and video games that many might find repugnant. A Supreme Court decision in 2011 struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors on the grounds that its vague and ill-defined language violated the First Amendment rights of the entertainment merchants.

I have no personal experience with violent video games but the amount of violence depicted in some current video games is astounding. The gore was graphically described by Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion to the 2011 Supreme Court decision. In obvious disgust, he wrote that victims are killed with every imaginable implement, including machine guns, clubs, hammers, and chainsaws, among others. Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces. They cry out in agony and beg for mercy. Blood gushes, splatters, and pools. Severed body parts and gobs of human remains are graphically shown.

Some games exploit antisocial themes, he continued. There are games in which a player can re-enact the killings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. The goal of one game is to rape a mother and her daughter, of another game to rape Native-American women. There is an ethnic cleansing game in which players can choose to gun down African-Americans, Latinos, or Jews.

Fortunately, there is no hard evidence yet that such games lead to mass murders or grisly killings. Indeed, most correlation studies show at most a small effect.

The late Justice Antonio Scalia, writing for the majority in the 2011 Supreme Court decision, scoffed at the notion that violent video games cause real-world violence. Most of the research studies suffer from admitted flaws in methodology, he wrote. "They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game."

Professional societies have struggled with the issue and waged battles within their ranks without reaching a clear conclusion.

In 2007, the American Medical Association's (AMA) Council on Science and Public Health issued a report likening excessive use of video games to a gambling addiction, although it acknowledged there was insufficient research to be sure it was an addiction. The council urged the AMA to contact the American Psychiatric Association (APA) about including internet and video game addiction in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a text used by psychiatrists around the world. But when the recommendations were put to a vote at the AMA's annual meeting, the delegates backed away and simply called for more research and a review of a video game ratings system that was set up when in the wake of Senate hearings in 1993 to help parents decide whether to let their children play a video game.

The APA was also split internally. The association's official position, expressed in a resolution adopted in August 2015, is that the link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is "one of the most studied and best established." However, that aggressiveness included insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting, and other forms of verbal and physical aggression. There was insufficient research on whether violent video games cause lethal violence. Studies have also shown that video game use is associated with a decrease in empathy and other socially desirable behavior.

A component of the association, the APA's division for media psychology and technology, was much more dismissive of any causal link. In a policy statement on June 22, 2017, it found "scant evidence" of any causal connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent activities" and "little evidence" that playing such games "produces violent criminal behavior."

The warring positions on the issue were judged closer to agreement than most think in a recent analysis. A paper published in Perspectives on Psychological Science on June 12 used what it called "novel analyses" to determine whether conflicting results of meta-analyses were an artifact of reporting practices that masked an underlying consensus. The paper found that "all of the meta/analyses do in fact point to the conclusion that, in the vast majority of settings, violent video games do increase aggressive behavior but that these effects are almost always quite small."

That judgement was consistent with views expressed in separate articles by Benedict Carey and Kevin Draper in the New York TImes on August 5, just after the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton Ohio.

One respected organization, the National Center for Health Research, a non-profit non-partisan organization that critiques medical research, leans in the direction of worrying about triggering lethal assaults. It published an article on "Violent Video Games and Aggression" which found that: "Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chance of later delinquency, criminal behavior, or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct and require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also result in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, but there is no clear evidence to support that assumption."

That paper and many others stress that video game exposure is only one of many risk factors for aggressive behavior and violence. Various scholars point to such factors as racism and ethnic hatred, certain psychiatric disorders, adverse social environments, and easy access to guns and other lethal weapons, which may be the most critical factor of all.

Focusing on violent video games as the cause of mass shootings almost certainly distracts legislators and government officials from the pressing need to deal with more fundamental causes. It is a moral imperative for federal and state legislators, government officials, and all others concerned with lethal violence to confront the underlying problems and not take symbolic refuge in blaming violent video games.

-
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by The Dana Foundation.
Phil Boffey is former deputy editor of the New York Times Editorial Board and editorial page writer, primarily focusing on the impacts of science and health on society. He was also editor of Science Times and a member of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Violent Video Games Lead to Violence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neuroethics Viewpoint Author: Philip M. Boffey Published: November 1, 2019 A long-standing debate over whether violence depicted in video games can trigger real-world violence has taken on renewed vigor in the wake of mass shootings in recent years.