How far must employers go to accommodate workers’ time off for worship? The Supreme Court will weigh in

The case stems from USPS’ deal with Amazon to deliver on Sundays. mcdomx/E+ via Getty Images

Charles J. Russo, University of Dayton

Imagine you own a business with a few dozen employees. One, who is Muslim, asks if she can use a meeting room a few times a day for brief prayers – one of the five pillars of Islam. Another, who observes the Jewish Sabbath, says he cannot work on Saturdays. Yet another, a Christian, requests to no longer work on Sundays, one of the shop’s busier days.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon address the extent to which employers must accommodate employees, if at all, in similar circumstances.

A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.

Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself.

Sunday deliveries

Groff’s “religious beliefs dictate that Sunday is meant for worship and rest,” according to court documents. He went to work for the USPS in Pennsylvania in 2012. Controversy began a year later, when USPS signed an agreement with the online retail giant Amazon to make deliveries throughout the week, including on Sundays. The success of Sunday deliveries was critical to the postal service, according to court filings.

Groff was initially exempted from working on his Sabbath, as long as he could get someone to cover his shifts. However, supervisors told him that he would have to be available during the peak holiday season.

Groff then transferred to another post office in the region that did not deliver on Sundays. However, it eventually began to, and Groff did not report to work on at least 24 Sundays. Also, he rejected the postmaster’s offer to permit him to attend religious services on Sunday mornings and report to work afterward, an accommodation similar to what the postmaster provided to other employees.

Groff contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which agreed that, at first appearance, it looked as though he might have had a claim for failure to accommodate but was not subjected to discrimination.

After facing discipline and workplace tension, and having filed two more complaints with the commission, Groff resigned in January 2019, alleging that officials had failed to accommodate his religious beliefs.

The U.S. Postal Service partnered with Amazon for Sunday deliveries. The Good Brigade/Digital Vision via Getty Images

From the post office to the courts

Groff then filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a far-reaching federal statute that forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color, sex and national origin. However, the court held that USPS officials had offered reasonable accommodations.

Groff appealed, but in a 2-1 judgment, the 3rd Circuit affirmed in favor of USPS, relying on two Supreme Court cases.

In the first case that the 3rd Circuit relied on, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Supreme Court had ruled that employers need not accommodate the religious needs of employees if doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost.” Ever since this 1977 decision, employers have generally used the Hardison decision to refuse accommodations deemed more than “de minimis.”

In the second case that the 3rd Circuit cited, Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII as meaning that once employers offer an employee reasonable accommodations – even if not the requested accommodations – officials are not obligated to do anything else if the original request would have created undue hardships on other workers.

The Supreme Court’s turn

Groff’s case highlights the tension between Title VII’s actual words – which require employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for time away from duties – and the court’s interpretation of them in the Hardison case, which does not require employers to bear more than “de minimis” costs. Groff’s attorneys are also asking the court to settle whether costs to other employees – such as having to cover more Sunday shifts – count as “undue hardship” on the business itself.

In advance of the oral arguments, four members of the Supreme Court appear to be skeptical of the “de minimis” interpretation in Hardison. In a decision for another case, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, criticized Hardison as inadequate, writing that “de minimis” “does not represent the most likely interpretation of the statutory term ‘undue hardship.’”

In yet another case, Gorsuch agreed that the Hardison rationale “dramatically revised – really, undid – Title VII’s undue hardship test.” Under its definition, “the company had no obligation to provide [the] requested accommodation because doing so would have cost the company something (anything) more than a trivial amount.”

The court has been supportive of religious freedom claims in its most recent cases, leading some analysts to anticipate change is in the offing.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Groff, though, this much is reasonably certain: The justices will usher in a new era of employer-employee relations with regard to religious accommodations.

Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What parents and educators need to know about teens’ pornography and sexting experiences at school

Pornography presents persistent risks for adolescents. EMS-FORSTER-PRODUCTIONS via Getty Images

Megan K. Maas, Michigan State University

Three out of four teenagers have seen online pornography – often before they even became a teenager. That’s according to a new report from Common Sense Media that examines the role pornography plays in the lives of today’s youth.

Some teens do more than just watch pornography. By way of “sexting,” teenagers are also creating and sending their own images and videos of themselves in the nude.

For the most part, it’s not the job of school staff to worry about what kids are looking at on the internet or sending over their phones. However, as an expert on human development – and as one who studies adolescent sexuality – I believe parents and educators should be prepared to address potential issues that might arise as a result of students’ engagement with pornography and sexting. This sort of preparedness is especially pertinent today because smartphones enable kids to look at porn and to sext during school hours.

Here are five things that parents and educators should know as pornography use and sexting become more commonplace among students:

1. Pornography is not what it used to be

Fifty-two percent of teens have seen violent pornography. This includes acts such as choking, slapping, gagging, hitting and crying. This is because the internet changed the way pornography is distributed. There used to be more regulations on violent content and age verification to adhere to pay-per-view standards in hotel rooms and DVD sales. Now, self-produced and distributed content reigns on “tube-site” platforms that function similarly to YouTube.

Tube sites like PornHub allow for users to freely view and upload their own content. At its inception, many users assumed it was primarily “amateur content” or homemade and consensual content. However, one study showed that 1 in 8 titles of videos on the website described sexual violence. An investigation by the BBC and New York Times was prompted by victims who learned that video footage of their sexual assaults was being freely viewed on the website. The investigation uncovered millions of videos of suspected abuse and coercion, causing credit card companies to cut ties.

OnlyFans, another tube-site platform composed of user-uploaded content, also facilitates camming, or live sexual interaction, with content creators for a fee. Although there does not appear to be peer-reviewed research on adolescents’ use of OnlyFans, there are some reports that minors are bypassing age verification and selling their own sexually explicit images on the platform.

Teens can access cellphones during the school day. Rafa Fernandez Torres via Getty Images

2. Pornography is a source of sex education for teens

Without widespread comprehensive sex education in the U.S., young adults have identified pornography as a primary source of sex education. However, the pornography that teens have the easiest access to – tube-site pornography – tends to portray more sexual aggression, degradation of women and people of color and lack of sexual consent.

For example, choking or strangulation during sex has been increasing in porn. This is concerning to violence researchers, neurologists and mental health professionals because recent reports indicate that 1 in 3 women were choked during their last sexual experience. Although the majority of women reported feelings of euphoria, strangulation during sex carries the same risk for brain damage due to loss of oxygen as being strangled in other contexts.

What’s also concerning is that male adolescents exposed to violent pornography are more likely to be higher in sexual aggression and are two to three times more likely to have pressured a partner to engage in sexual activity the partner did not want to engage in than male adolescents who view less violent pornography or less pornography overall. For teen girls, their violent pornography exposure is associated with nonviolent risk behaviors, such as substance use, buying or selling sex, and sexual victimization.

3. Although it is not wise, sexting is not always harmful

Although many adults cringe when they learn about teens sharing nudes with each other – many states still define sexting among teens as the distribution of child sexual abuse material – consensual sexting can be a normal and healthy part of adolescent sexuality. Some teens are motivated to use sexting to explore their sexuality by expressing their feelings and desires while practicing trust and vulnerability with intimate images. However, if sexting is coercive, or the sexts are shared outside of the couple without permission, it can be considered by law enforcement and violence researchers a form of sexual harassment or image-based sexual abuse.

Three out of four teens have viewed online pornography. Alihan Usullu via Getty Images

It’s important to note that, as with many issues related to teenage development, potential harms or benefits of sexting are dependent on factors such as maturity, the nature of the relationship between the individuals involved and gender. For example, one study found that boys were more likely than girls to disseminate sexts to peers without the consent of those in the picture.

4. Sending other people’s sexual content is often harmful and illegal

Once an image or video is shared, it can be difficult to control how it is used or distributed, which can lead to feelings of shame, guilt and embarrassment for the original sender. The sending of others’ sexual content can take many forms, such as sharing a nude image via small groups or posting an image more publicly to a website. Such images and videos can be shared widely or even secretly among private social media accounts and group email lists known as “slut pages.”

Slut pages have the ability to shape a school’s culture on sexual violence, as they are intended to make nonconsensual pornography seem amusing. This can encourage peers and even adults to minimize the emotional trauma a person may experience when they learn that their images are posted on a slut page.

5. Schools can be liable for online sexual misconduct under Title IX

Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive federal funding, can potentially be used to address nonconsensual pornography in high schools. When school administrators know or reasonably should know about nonconsensual pornography, Title IX requires them to take prompt and effective steps to end the harassment, prevent its recurrence and address its effects. This can include conducting investigations, taking disciplinary action against the individuals involved and providing support and resources for affected students.

However, a study conducted by Advocates for Youth showed that school staff tended to minimize sexual harassment as a typical right of passage. Without staff training that targets this bias, the victims of nonconsensual pornography can feel uncomfortable going to staff because victim blaming can be so prevalent. For example, in our experiences training school staff, a common response to the distribution of a student’s nude images is often, “Why did she send him that picture in the first place?” which is understandable. Educators could also consider asking, “Why did he share that picture with the whole school?”

Is there anything that can be done?

In our study, we found that public school administrators, staff and educators overwhelmingly agree that education for school staff, parents and students needs to happen to improve the social lives of today’s digital natives. We found that when school staff received education that included facts about how teens engage with pornography and sexting and some examples of how to respond when problems occur, they were more confident and less embarrassed discussing these topics if they were to arise at school.

We also think if schools’ sexual misconduct policies address digital behavior, that could also play a major role in determining how schools both prevent and respond to nonconsensual sexting and pornography among students. We are currently researching which schools do this well to provide an example that other schools can follow.

Megan K. Maas, Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

I went to CPAC to take MAGA supporters’ pulse – China and transgender people are among the top ‘demons’ they say are ruining the country

Supporters listen to former President Donald Trump at the CPAC meeting in Maryland in March 2023. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alexander Hinton, Rutgers University - Newark

In early March 2023, I mixed with the Make America Great Again faithful at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference – a popular meeting, often known as CPAC, for conservative activists and political figures.

I walked, ate and sat with the attendees at the National Harbor in Maryland over the course of four days. Many of them were dressed in MAGA and pro-Trump gear such as sequined hats and shirts that said things like “Trump won” the 2020 election. A few had tattoos of Trump’s face.

Media reports show that CPAC, which did not publicize the number of attendees, had lower-than-normal attendance and fewer high-profile sponsors.

Approximately 62% of CPAC attendees participating in a straw poll said they support Donald Trump for president in 2024.

Understanding CPAC

Many commentators and others have labeled CPAC extremist. The program was loaded with sometimes incendiary figures reviled by the left, including Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, as well as former Trump political advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.

I am a scholar of extremism in the United States and went to CPAC for two reasons. First, I wanted to hear firsthand what conservatives, and especially Trump followers, said. At a time of high political polarization, it is important to understand different positions.

Second, almost half of people in the U.S. fear political violence and civil war. I wanted to take the pulse of the conservative right and assess points of division ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting America Now.” Who and what were the perceived threats? And, amid the polarization, was there any common ground shared by conservatives and liberals?

I discovered five frequent demons at the conference: there were China’s Communist Party and border criminals – including Mexican drug cartels and undocumented immigrants. “Radical left Marxists” and the ideologies of “wokism” and “transgenderism” were also frequent targets.

While I also found a few glimmers of hope for political common ground between the left and right, it was apparent that Trumpism – and the election denial, misinformation and scapegoating that come with it – is stronger than some think and, I believe, remains a threat to U.S. democracy.

CPAC attendees visit booths promoting political groups and products for sale. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

China

China was one of the biggest common enemies identified at the conference. Just days after senior U.S. intelligence officials said that China is the United States’ biggest national security threat, speaker after speaker at CPAC harped on this theme.

The first day included panels titled “Caging the Red Dragon” and “No Chinese Balloons Above Tennessee.”

Such language plays to the growing number of Americans who view China as the country’s biggest enemy.

Border criminals

The focus on China connected to another target at the conference – Mexican cartels that engage in human and drug trafficking. This includes groups that bring fentanyl – a drug that is Chinese-manufactured or made from Chinese-produced chemicals – into the U.S.

Many speakers accurately noted the staggering number of fentanyl deaths in the U.S., including over 100,000 overdose deaths in 2021. But they did so in often apocalyptic terms.

They were quick to blame the Biden administration, ignoring that these issues have a long history and also existed under former President Donald Trump.

The crisis, CPAC speakers said, includes large numbers of undocumented migrants crossing the border – who they sometimes derogatorily referred to as “illegal aliens.” Oddly, those crossing the border were depicted both as victims of the violent cartels and as criminal and economic threats to Americans.

American Marxism

CPAC speakers and attendees spotlighted what they saw as equally dire demons lurking within the country.

“Radical leftist Marxists” – a stand-in for all Democrats – stood at the top of the list. These leftist radicals, CPAC speakers suggested, were intent on turning the U.S. into a socialist country like China in which the state controlled bodies and minds and quashed individual rights and freedoms.

The Democratic Party “hates this country,” Fox TV personality Mark Levin claimed on the CPAC stage.

“This American Marxist movement,” he continued, his voice raising, “took off big time during COVID” and then “rode the wave of Black Lives Matter, Antifa and the cop-hating, to advance this racist, Marxist, bigoted, socialist, anti-American agenda – which is everything today the Democrat Party today stands for!”

The crowd responded with loud applause and cheers – ignoring that these often repeated claims have little basis in reality.

Wokism

This anti-American agenda, Levin and other CPAC speakers argued, was illustrated by “wokism.”

Being woke generally means understanding societal issues like racial and social justice. But CPAC speakers, who didn’t define the term, suggested that these efforts were really part of a “radical leftist” plot to control what people think and say – an idea that the right has derided as “political correctness” in the past.

‘Transgenderism’

There was also an emphasis on gender and the perceived threat of transgender people. Some of the anti-transgender sentiment was casual, such as when Rep. Gaetz quipped, “We had to spend four, five days asking the Chinese spy balloon what its pronouns were before we were willing to shoot it down.”

Perhaps the most strident remarks were made by conservative political commentator Michael Knowles, who stated, “for the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.”

Despite his inflammatory language and use of “transgenderism,” a derogatory term suggesting that transgender people have “a condition,” Knowles received loud applause.

So, too, did other speakers who disparaged transgender identity – an issue that has become a culture wars flashpoint.

The Anti-Defamation League, among other human rights groups, has shown that the idea transgender people are predatory “groomers” or pedophiles is false and is being circulated by some Republicans only for political gain.

In March 2023, Tennessee became the first state to pass a law that restricts drag performances in the presence of children – a move that likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech protection and, in my view, is based on fear, not facts. Other Republican-led states are considering anti-drag legislation.

Guests listen to former President Donald Trump address the Conservative Political Action Conference as the headline speaker. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The warrior

By the time Trump took the stage, the CPAC crowd was primed. People danced and waved “TRUMP WAS RIGHT!” placards.

Trump offered an apocalyptic vision of the country’s future.

“Sinister forces” are seeking to turn the U.S. into a “lawless open-borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare,” Trump said.

Trump promised to fight back against these forces. “I am your warrior,” he told the adoring crowd. “I am your justice.”

The rocky ride ahead

I went to CPAC to find areas where the left and right might find common ground. Both sides worry about issues like inflation, fentanyl and crime. And, even as they may disagree on the path to get there, both want a better future for the country.

But politics is another demon lurking in the room. Most of the speakers at CPAC seemed to be there to rile up the crowd, which included many activists.

This was especially true of Trump, whose divisiveness was on clear display at CPAC.

All of this suggests the U.S. faces a rocky ride to the upcoming 2024 election.

Alexander Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University - Newark

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Americans remain hopeful about democracy despite fears of its demise – and are acting on that hope

Black voters are punishing anti-democratic candidates at the ballot box. AP Photo/Morry Gash

Ray Block Jr, Penn State; Andrene Wright, Penn State, and Mia Angelica Powell, Penn State

President Joe Biden will convene world leaders beginning on March 29, 2023, to discuss the state of democracies around the world.

The Summit for Democracy, a virtual event being co-hosted by the White House, is being touted as an opportunity to “reflect, listen and learn” with the aim of encouraging “democratic renewal.”

As political scientists, we have been doing something very similar. In the fall of 2022 we listened to thousands of U.S. residents about their views on the state of American democracy. What we found was that, despite widespread fears over the future of democracy, many people are also hopeful, and that hope translated into “voting for democracy” by shunning election result deniers at the polls.

Our study – and indeed Biden’s stated push for democracy – comes at a unique point in American political history.

As a group, we have decades of experience studying politics and believe that not since the American Civil War has there been so much concern that American democracy, while always a work in progress, is under threat. Survey trends point to eroding trust in democratic institutions. And in addition to serving as a direct reminder of our political system’s fragility, the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol provoked concern of the potential of democratic backsliding in the U.S.

Fears of a failing democracy

The 2022 midterms were the first nationwide ballot to take place after the Jan. 6 attack. The vote provided a good opportunity to check in with potential U.S. voters over how they viewed the risks to democracy.

As such, in the fall of 2022, the African American Research Collaborative – of which one of us is a member – worked with a team of partners to create the Midterm Election Voter Poll. In an online and phone survey, we asked more than 12,000 U.S. voters from a variety of backgrounds a series of questions about voting intention and trust in national politics. Respondents were also quizzed over their concern about the state of American democracy.

On a five-point scale ranging from “very” to “not at all,” the survey asked how worried respondents were that: “The political system in the United States is failing and there is a decent chance that we will no longer have a functioning democracy within the next 10 years.”

Roughly 6 in 10 Americans expressed fear that democracy is in peril, with 35% saying they were “very worried.”

Broken down by race and ethnicity, white Americans were the most concerned, with 64% expressing some worry that democracy is in peril. Black and Latino Americans were slightly less concerned. Asian Americans appeared the least worried, with 55% expressing concern.

Of the 63% of respondents who registered concern, more than half said they were “very worried” that democracy is in trouble and that it may soon come to an end.

Such fragility-of-democracy concerns can have a self-perpetuating effect; voters’ increasing lack of faith in their system can hasten the collapse in government they fear.

For example, negative attitudes about democracy can also destabilize voting habits – prompting some to skip elections altogether while motivating others to swing back and forth between candidates and political parties from one election to another. This pattern of voting can, in turn, lead to gridlock in government or worse: the election of cynical politicians who are less able – or even willing – to govern. It is a process that former Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts described in 2015 as the “self-fulfilling prophesy of ‘government doesn’t work.’”

Turning hope into action

But the story that emerged from our survey isn’t all doom and gloom.

In addition to confirming how endangered Americans believe their democracy is, citizens appear hopeful that their political system can recover. When given the prompt: “Overall, as you vote in November 2022, are you mostly feeling …,” more than 40% of the respondents – regardless of race or ethnicity – said they felt “hopeful.”

Indeed, “hope” was by far the most common feeling out of the four emotions that respondents were able to choose from. “Worry” was the second most typical emotion, with 31% of the total sample selecting it, followed by “pride” and “anger.”

Rather than resigning themselves to a lost democracy, the results indicate that voters from a broad array of demographic and political backgrounds feel hopeful that American democracy can overcome the challenges facing the nation.

Black Americans were among the most hopeful (49%), second only to Asian Americans (55%), while white Americans were the most worried (33%). These racial and ethnic differences are consistent with recent research on how emotions can shape politics.

The results also make sense in the context of the trajectory of race relations in the U.S. Black people have borne the brunt of what happens when authoritarian forces in this country have prevailed. They have suffered firsthand from anti-democratic actions being used against them, depriving them of the right to vote, for example. Throughout U.S. history, stories of racial progress often reveal a struggle to reconcile feelings of hope and worry – particularly when thinking about what America is versus what the nation ought to be.

Such hope in democracy has turned into action. Efforts to counter GOP-led attempts to suppress votes are encouraging signs of citizens combating anti-democratic measures, while punishing parties deemed to be pushing them.

Take the example of Georgia, which has “flipped from Republican to Democrat” in large part because of voting rights activist and Democratic politician Stacey Abrams’ tireless mobilization efforts. In the midterm election, GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker underperformed among Black voters, winning less of the Black vote than GOP candidates in other states.

The breaking of the Republican stronghold in Georgia fits with a broader theme of Black voters casting ballots to “save democracy,” as scholars writing for the Brookings Institution think tank put it. In rejecting anti-democratic measures – and representatives of the party held responsible – in Georgia, “Black people were the solution for an authentic democracy.”

Black women deserve the most credit here, consistently voting for pro-democracy candidates. Not surprisingly, when broken down by race and gender, our survey shows that Black women are most hopeful (56%), some way ahead of white men (43%), with Black men and white women both at 42%.

A democracy, to keep for good.

Democracy has long been a cherished ideal in the U.S. – but one that from the country’s founding was perceived to be fragile.

When asked what sort of political system the Founding Fathers had agreed upon during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin famously replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

While acknowledging that the success of our government isn’t promised, Franklin’s words serve as a reminder that citizens must work relentlessly to maintain and protect what the Constitution provides. What we’ve discovered, both from our survey and from how people voted, is that Americans are sending a clear message that they support democracy, and will fight anti-democratic measures – something that politicians of all parties might benefit from listening to if we want to keep our republic.

Ray Block Jr, Brown-McCourtney Career Development Professor in the McCourtney Institute and associate professor of political science and African American studies, Penn State; Andrene Wright, Presidential Postdoctoral Fellow, Penn State, and Mia Angelica Powell, PhD Student in Department of Political Science, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Downing of US drone in Russian jet encounter prompts counterclaims of violations in the sky

A U.S. surveillance drone flies over the USS Coronado in the Pacific Ocean during an April 2021 drill. U.S. Navy/Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon Renfroe

Ashley S. Deeks, University of Virginia

The details are disputed, but either way the result was the same: On March 14, 2023, a U.S. drone crashed into the Black Sea after an encounter with Russian aircraft.

According to the U.S. version of events, the unarmed MQ-9 surveillance drone was flying in international airspace when two Russian fighter jets dumped fuel on the drone before colliding with it in violation of international law.

The Russian Defense Ministry denied that its aircraft made contact with the U.S. drone. Instead, Russia asserted that the drone was flying in the direction of Russia’s borders with its transponder off, suggesting that Russia found the flight suspicious. In addition, Russia said, the U.S. drone violated the “temporary boundaries” that Russia had established for its operations against Ukraine and crashed on its own.

In light of Russia’s past misrepresentations about its military activities during its invasion of Ukraine, I view Russia’s assertions with skepticism. Moreover, as someone who studies international law and formerly served in the U.S. State Department as a lawyer advising on issues related to armed conflict, I see this episode as highlighting the right of countries to operate aircraft and drones in international airspace – even for the purposes of spying on another state.

Showing ‘due regard’

If the U.S. characterization of the facts is correct, then Russia did indeed violate international law by interfering with the U.S. drone.

Under Article 87 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas, the high seas – basically, waters that are not any country’s territorial sea or exclusive economic zone – are open to all states. And the right of a country to operate on the high seas includes the freedom of overflight.

The convention also states that the freedoms “shall be exercised by all states with due regard for the interests of other states in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas.”

The United States is not a party to the convention, which was signed in 1982 and currently has 168 parties, including Russia. Nevertheless, the U.S. recognizes many of its provisions as customary law; indeed, a key U.S. naval handbook recognizes that “the aircraft of all states are free to operate in international airspace without interference by other states.”

As such, Russia violated international law when it failed to act with “due regard” for the U.S. right to engage in freedom of overflight. In fact, based on the U.S. account, Russia directly interfered with that right. And it is presumably on this basis that the State Department spokesman called the drone’s downing a “brazen violation of international law.”

Any Russian concerns that the U.S. drone may have been spying on its military operations would not alter this conclusion. Freedom of overflight in international airspace includes the act of monitoring activities inside another state’s territory, as long as the monitoring occurs from within international airspace.

So it would not matter from the perspective of international law whether the United States was using the MQ-9 to spy on military activities inside Russia or Russian-controlled Crimea.

Aircraft in conflict zones

Russia appears to be taking the position that it was entitled to set up boundaries for its “special military operation” in Ukraine and that the United States disregarded those boundaries.

Russia may be referring here to a “maritime exclusion zone” that Russia set up in February 2022 to prohibit navigation in the northwest portion of the Black Sea.

In general, the United States considers such zones to be lawful if their purpose is to direct neutral ships and aircraft away from conflict areas – they can play an important role in reducing the risk that such vessels are mistakenly attacked. The United States itself established a “maritime safety zone” in the Mediterranean Sea in 2003 in connection with its invasion of Iraq.

However, neutral ships and aircraft do not become lawful targets merely because they enter such zones. Russia would only have had a reasonable claim to use force against, or interfere with, the U.S. drone if it posed an imminent threat of an armed attack or was otherwise a legitimate military target during an armed conflict. For this to be the case, the U.S. drone would have had to be taking direct part in hostilities, and it is known that the MQ-9 was unarmed.

On solid ground in the skies

Assuming the U.S. account is correct, it would not be the first time that a country has interfered with a U.S. surveillance aircraft in an unsafe manner and effectively downed it.

In 2001, a Chinese fighter jet bumped into a U.S. signals intelligence aircraft that was operating 70 miles from China’s Hainan Island. The U.S. aircraft was damaged in a way that forced it to make an emergency landing on Hainan, while the Chinese fighter jet itself crashed. At the time, the United States asserted that international law, including the “due regard” principle, permitted the United States to conduct surveillance flights in China’s exclusive economic zone, which the U.S. considered to be international airspace. China didn’t and detained the 24 U.S. crew members, demanding an apology from Washington. Since then, China has intercepted Australian and Canadian aircraft that were engaged in routine surveillance in international airspace, prompting complaints similar to those the United States is making now.

In both the China case and the recent Black Sea incident, the United States has taken a consistent, widely shared position on the use of international airspace. As such, I believe it is on solid ground in objecting to Russia’s actions as unlawful.

Ashley S. Deeks, Professor of Scholarly Research in Law, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What exactly is the internet?

What exactly is the internet? A computer scientist explains what it is and how it came to be

The internet is used for a lot more than just surfing the web. Jonathan Kirn/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Fred Martin, UMass Lowell

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

---

What exactly is the internet? Nora, age 8, Akron, Ohio

---

The internet is a global collection of computers that know how to send messages to one another. Practically everything connected to the internet is indeed a computer – or has one “baked inside” of it.

In the early 1960s, computers were used only for special purposes, like scientific research. There weren’t a lot of them because they were large and expensive. One computer and its attached accessories could easily fill a room. To exchange data, people would plan time to work together, and one computer would connect to another with a telephone call.

The U.S. government wanted a network that would allow computers to communicate automatically and even if some telephone lines were cut off. Suppose you wanted to send a message from Computer A to Computer B in each of three different types of networks. The first is a network with one central computer connected to all the others as spokes. The second is a network of several of these hub-and-spoke networks with their hubs connected. The third is a network where every computer is connected to several others, forming a kind of mesh. Which do you think would be most reliable if some computers and links were damaged?

To get a message from A to B, which type of network is most likely to keep working if some of the lines are cut? Txelu Balboa via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The first network is vulnerable, because if the central computer is lost, then none of the computers can communicate. The second network is vulnerable because if any of the hub computers are lost, the path between A and B is cut. But in the third network, many individual computers and links could be lost and there would still be a path to connect A and B. So the third network would be the most reliable.

Hot potatoes

An American engineer named Paul Baran worked on this problem at a company called the Rand Corp. In 1962, he published a new idea for computer networks, which he called “hot potato networking.”

In Baran’s idea, a message would be broken up into lots of little pieces – the potatoes. When Computer A wanted to sent its message to Computer B, it would individually send the little potatoes to a neighbor computer. That computer would pass it along in the right direction as soon as it could. To make sure messages were delivered quickly, the message pieces were treated as if they were hot, so you didn’t want them in your hands for too long.

The messages included a sequence number so when they arrived at Computer B, the final destination computer, that machine would know how to put them in the proper order to receive the full message.

Baran’s idea got implemented as the ARPANET. This network was the immediate predecessor to today’s internet.

Instead of hot potatoes, the system got a more formal name, which we still use: “packet switched networking.” The potato got renamed as a packet – a small piece of the full message.

Vinton Cerf, an American computer scientist, is known as one of the fathers of the internet. He contributed many essential ideas, including that the receiving computer could ask the sending computer for a packet that went missing – which they sometimes do. This has the name Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP.

A web of pages

Another important contributor was Tim Berners-Lee, a British computer scientist. Berners-Lee was working at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. He wanted to create a system for his colleagues to better share their research results with one another.

Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in the early 1990s. CERN, CC BY-NC

Around 1990, Berners-Lee came up with the idea that a computer could host a collection of “pages,” each of which had text, images and links to other pages. He created an easy way for links to specify any computer – the concept of the URL, or Uniform Resource Locator.

Berners-Lee named the system the World Wide Web. He wrote the code for the first web browser, to view web pages, and web server, to deliver them. If you see a URL that includes “www” – that’s from the original name.

Berners-Lee may have been planning to use the web particularly to share text, images and files. But the earlier work on the internet made the web suitable for video and sound, too. YouTube, Instagram and TikTok are built using the same rules, or protocols, developed by Cerf and Berners-Lee.

Internet of Things

In the past 20 years, computers have become even more powerful and inexpensive. Now, a computer chip that can connect directly to the internet sells for US$5 – a lot less than today’s laptops and cellphones (about $300) or yesterday’s room-size computers ($1 million or more!).

Many newer appliances like this smart refrigerator are connected to the internet. Paul Stefaan Mooij/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

This lower cost has led to millions upon millions of devices connected to the internet. These devices include sensors. A smart thermostat monitors your house using a temperature sensor. A security camera keeps an eye on your front porch using an array of tiny light sensors.

These devices also include actuators – mechanisms that control activity in the physical world. For example, a smart thermostat can turn on and off the heating and cooling systems in your house.

Together, all these smart devices are called the Internet of Things, or IoT. The internet includes not only computers and phones, but all these IoT devices. You may have a smart refrigerator that has a camera inside of it. When it notices you’re out of milk, it will send a message to your cellphone, reminding you to buy more.

Just about everything is connected to the internet now.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

Fred Martin, Professor of Computer Science, UMass Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

US regulators avoided a banking crisis by swift action following SVB’s collapse

US regulators avoided a banking crisis by swift action following SVB’s collapse – but the cracks it exposed continue to weaken the global financial system’s foundation

The cracks in the financial system are growing. John Sommer/E+ via Getty Images

D. Brian Blank, Mississippi State University and Brandy Hadley, Appalachian State University

U.S. regulators’ swift reaction to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and two other lenders partially restored calm to markets, but concerns remain over the stability of the global financial system.

The government on March 16, 2023, orchestrated a US$30 billion rescue of First Republic Bank by the nation’s largest financial institutions after the California lender’s shares plunged. Meanwhile in Europe, Credit Suisse borrowed about $54 billion from Switzerland’s central bank after investors, spooked by the U.S. bank failures, feared the Swiss lender would run out of money over its own financial woes.

To better understand what U.S. regulators did, the impact of their decisions and what problems remain, The Conversation turned to two finance scholars, Brian Blank of Mississippi State and Brandy Hadley of Appalachian State.

What did US regulators do?

The program introduced by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve on March 12, 2023, essentially amounts to life insurance for U.S. banks.

The biggest concern from the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on March 10, as well as Signature Bank two days later, was the tens of billions of dollars in deposits that would otherwise go uninsured. While the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000, anything above that is at risk of loss in the event of a bank failure.

So the FDIC agreed to provide a backstop for all SVB and Signature depositors no matter how much they had deposited. And the Fed created a new lending facility to protect other small- to medium-size banks from the same issues that caused bank runs at SVB and Signature.

Notably, this protection for depositors does not extend to management, lenders or investors, including many institutional investors, pensions and large index funds. In addition, the program will be funded by an FDIC fund that comes from a tax on member banks. Taxpayer dollars aren’t at stake, Congress approval wasn’t required and, most importantly, only customers’ claims are protected. This is why the Biden administration insists this is not a bailout – even though some critics call it that.

Nonetheless, the government did intervene to stop the fallout from failing banks, even if done differently than in the past.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank touched off anxiety about the entire banking sector. AP Photo/Benjamin Fanjoy

Why did the government act so quickly?

When the bank run on SVB’s deposits began on March 8, the lender initially sought to find a buyer. When that failed, regulators stepped in quickly to limit the risk to the financial system.

This was particularly important given that banks rely heavily on trust, and a loss of depositor faith in other mid-size banks could be extremely harmful.

But besides posing a systemic financial risk as the 16th-largest U.S. lender, the failure of SVB also threatened the health of the tech sector.

Close to half of U.S. startups backed by venture capital firms, including tens of thousands of technology and health care companies, were customers at SVB. The bank’s failure would have made it hard for many of them to pay their workers or take out loans that keep businesses running.

What are the problems of this approach?

One concern is something economists call moral hazard.

U.S. regulators were basically doing what governments have done to prevent banking crises since at least the 19th century: provide liquidity. That is, according to the academic theory established by Economist magazine founder Walter Bagehot in 1873, central banks should lend freely to lenders during a financial crisis to prevent a panic and restore confidence in the system.

But doing this could create a moral hazard by potentially encouraging risky behavior by banks, which may come to believe they will always be bailed out. This dilemma highlights the challenge of balancing the need for financial stability with the desire to avoid creating perverse incentives.

With the SVB rescue, regulators likely hope to avoid this by focusing protection efforts on depositors – not equity or debt investors.

Another problem is that the rescue treats the symptoms more than the root causes.

The source of SVB’s downfall was that it invested a significant chunk of its assets in Treasury securities that lost value as the Fed hiked rates in 2022. SVB sold $21 billion worth of these bonds at a loss of $1.8 billion in order to cover customer deposit withdrawals. This then prompted a stampede of clients to yank their mostly uninsured deposits.

But despite the depositor protection offered by the new program, many more banks still face asset-liability mismatches – that is, short-term deposits being invested in longer-term securities – that will not go away as a result of the program. Banks reported $620 billion of these unrealized losses as of December 2022.

Some other banks – such as Signature and Silvergate Capital, which also recently failed – are similar to SVB, with concentrated business in risky sectors like venture capital, technology or cryptocurrencies.

How big of a concern is the root of the problem?

The good news is that few banks are likely to have the same combination of unrealized losses, concentrated deposits and default risk that are likely to result in withdrawals as fast as what happened at SVB and Signature.

Critically, large and mid-size banks are sufficiently regulated, diversified, hedged and capitalized to prevent similar problems, especially given the very different balance sheet compositions and asset liability management strategies.

But the risks are big, as the Fed’s aggressive campaign to raise interest rates could potentially make things worse. Inflation remains elevated, which would normally lead the U.S. central bank to continue to drive up rates. The nascent concern about stabilizing the financial sector at the same time as taming inflation means the Fed has its work cut out for it.

So is the financial system safe?

Unfortunately, not yet.

While the crisis has been averted for now by limiting the risk of another bank run, the financial system – as well as the modestly strong U.S. economy – is showing cracks and fragility.

The recent troubles at Credit Suisse are a stark reminder of how quickly things can spiral out of control.

Credit Suisse shares have been under pressure for several years because of its own unique problems, including scandals and a closely knit customer base that makes it more vulnerable to contagion. But the recent U.S. bank failures are causing broader panic among banks globally, which prompted the Swiss National Bank – Switzerland’s equivalent of the Fed – to provide Credit Suisse a huge lifeline.

There’s no reason to think that the financial system is in serious trouble – for now – but the risks of more jitters have increased, putting more pressure on central banks, including the Fed, to roll back their inflation-fighting plans. Of course, doing so can unleash other risks – such as prices once again spiraling out of control.

All told, it’s a challenging balancing act, requiring careful precision and swift action to avoid a painful fall.

D. Brian Blank, Assistant Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University and Brandy Hadley, Associate Professor of Finance and the David A. Thompson Distinguished Scholar in Applied Investments, Appalachian State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wake Up Refreshed

Simple ways to begin your morning

Ready, set, go. Just as you would set off at the starting line of a race, this hectic pace is how mornings begin for many men and women.

Instead of waking with dread to face another hectic morning, consider these tips for a healthier way to ease into your daily rituals. While these activities may require you to allow extra time, you may be pleased with the productive results.

Meditate. A practice that has been around for thousands of years may still be one of the best stress busters for hurried mornings. To start, find a place in your home that is free of noise and distraction. Practice sitting still, with eyes closed, and focus only on your breathing. Using deep, controlled breaths, try to steer your thoughts away from negative and stress-inducing thoughts.

Stretch. While the most health-conscious person may opt for a morning sweat-a-thon, working in some stretches can also be beneficial. When you awake, think about oft-used muscles and extend each one for 15-30 seconds.

Activate. Give your brain some fuel in the morning while also doing something nice for your mind. For example, journaling is a gentle way to ease into your morning and get your brain firing. If you can’t think of a topic, simply write down a few affirmations for the day, revisit a pleasant memory from your past or scribble down a goal for the week. Journaling can be an uplifting way to engage the mind and express gratitude for the day ahead.

Find more tips for starting your day on the right foot at eLivingToday.com.

SOURCE:
eLivingToday.com