How do superconductors work? A physicist explains what it means to have resistance-free electricity

Magnetic levitation is just one of the interesting attributes that make superconductors so interesting. Mark Garlick/Science Photo Library vie Getty Images

Mishkat Bhattacharya, Rochester Institute of Technology

The modern world runs on electricity, and wires are what carry that electricity to every light, television, heating system, cellphone and computer on the planet. Unfortunately, on average, about 5% of the power generated at a coal or solar power plant is lost as the electricity is transmitted from the plant to its final destination. This amounts to a US$6 billion loss annually in the U.S. alone.

For decades, scientists have been developing materials called superconductors that transmit electricity with nearly 100% efficiency. I am a physicist who investigates how superconductors work at the atomic level, how current flows at very low temperatures, and how applications such as levitation can be realized. Recently, researchers have made significant progress toward developing superconductors that can function at relatively normal temperatures and pressures.

To see why these recent advances are so exciting and what impact they may have on the world, it’s important to understand how superconducting materials work.

Most materials offer resistance when electricity runs through them and heat up. Resistance is how filaments in an incandescent lightbulb produce light. Ulfbastel/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

A resistance-free material

A superconductor is any material that conducts electricity without offering any resistance to the flow of the electric current.

This resistance-free attribute of superconductors contrasts dramatically with standard conductors of electricity – like copper or aluminum – which heat up when current passes through them. This is similar to quickly sliding your hand across a smooth, slick surface compared to sliding your hand over a rough rug. The rug generates more friction and, therefore, more heat, too. Electric toasters and older-style incandescent lightbulbs use resistance to produce heat and light, but resistance can pose problems for electronics. Semiconductors have resistance below that of conductors, but still higher than that of superconductors.

Superconductive materials repel magnetic fields, making it possible to levitate a magnet above a superconductor.

Another characteristic of superconductors is that they repel magnetic fields. You may have seen videos of the fascinating result of this effect: It is possible to levitate magnets above a superconductor.

How do superconductors work?

All superconductors are made of materials that are electrically neutral – that is, their atoms contain negatively charged electrons that surround a nucleus with an equal number of positively charged protons.

If you attach one end of a wire to something that is positively charged, and the other end to something that is negatively charged, the system will want to reach equilibrium by moving electrons around. This causes the electrons in the wire to try to move through the material.

At normal temperatures, electrons move in somewhat erratic paths. They can generally succeed in moving through a wire freely, but every once in a while they collide with the nuclei of the material. These collisions are what obstruct the flow of electrons, cause resistance and heat up the material.

The nuclei of all atoms are constantly vibrating. In a superconducting material, instead of flitting around randomly, the moving electrons get passed along from atom to atom in such a way that they keep in sync with the vibrating nuclei. This coordinated movement produces no collisions and, therefore, no resistance and no heat.

The colder a material gets, the more organized the movement of electrons and nuclei becomes. This is why existing superconductors only work at extremely low temperatures.

Superconducting materials would allow engineers to fit many more circuits onto a single computer chip. David Carron/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Benefits to electronics

If scientists can develop a room-temperature superconducting material, wires and circuitry in electronics would be much more efficient and produce far less heat. The benefits of this would be widespread.

If the wires used to transmit electricity were replaced with superconducting materials, these new lines would be able to carry up to five times as much electricity more efficiently than current cables.

The speed of computers is mostly limited by how many wires can be packed into a single electric circuit on a chip. The density of wires is often limited by waste heat. If engineers could use superconducting wires, they could fit many more wires in a circuit, leading to faster and cheaper electronics.

Finally, with room-temperature superconductors, magnetic levitation could be used for all sorts of applications, from trains to energy-storage devices.

With recent advances providing exciting news, both researchers looking at the fundamental physics of high-temperature superconductivity as well as technologists waiting for new applications are paying attention.

Mishkat Bhattacharya, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of Technology

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

How to unlock your creativity – even if you see yourself as a conventional thinker

People engage in creative thinking every day, whether they realize it or not. Ekaterina Chizhevskaya/iStock via Getty Images

Lily Zhu, Washington State University

Do you think that creativity is an innate gift? Think again.

Many people believe that creative thinking is difficult – that the ability to come up with ideas in novel and interesting ways graces only some talented individuals and not most others.

The media often portrays creatives as those with quirky personalities and unique talent. Researchers have also identified numerous personality traits that are associated with creativity, such as openness to new experiences, ideas and perspectives.

Together, they seem to paint a dire picture for those who consider themselves conventional thinkers, as well as those who do not work in creative occupations – including roles that are often considered traditional and noncreative, such as accountants and data analysts.

These beliefs miss a key part of how creativity works in your brain: Creative thinking is actually something you engage in every day, whether you realize it or not.

Moreover, creativity is a skill that can be strengthened. This matters even for people who don’t consider themselves creative or who aren’t in creative fields.

In research that I recently published with organization and management scholars Chris Bauman and Maia Young, we found that simply reinterpreting a frustrating situation can enhance the creativity of conventional thinkers.

Using creative thinking to cope with emotions

Creativity is often defined as the generation of ideas or insights that are novel and useful. That is, creative thoughts are original and unexpected, but also feasible and useful.

Everyday examples of creativity are plentiful: combining leftover food to make a tasty new dish, coming up with a new way to accomplish chores, mixing old outfits to create a new look.

Another way you do this is when you practice what’s called “emotional reappraisal” – viewing a situation through another lens to change your feelings. There is an element of creativity to this: You’re breaking away from your existing perspectives and assumptions and coming up with a new way of thinking.

Say you’re frustrated about a parking ticket. To alleviate the bad feelings, you can think of the fine as a learning moment.

If you’re anxious about a presentation for work, you can cope with the anxiety by framing it as an opportunity to share ideas, rather than as a high-stakes performance that could result in demotion if handled poorly.

And if you’re angry that someone seemed unnecessarily combative in a conversation, you might reevaluate the situation, coming to view the behavior as unintentional rather than malicious.

Training your creative muscles

To test the link between creative thinking and emotional reappraisal, we surveyed 279 people. Those who ranked higher on creativity tended to reappraise emotional events more often in their daily life.

Inspired by the link between emotional reappraisal and creative thinking, we wanted to see whether we could use this insight to develop ways to help people be more creative. In other words, could emotional reappraisal be practiced by people in order to train their creative muscles?

We ran two experiments in which two new samples of participants – 512 in total – encountered scenarios designed to provoke an emotional response. We tasked them with using one of three approaches to manage their emotions. We told some participants to suppress their emotional response, others to think about something else to distract themselves and the last group to reappraise the situation by looking at it through a different lens. Some participants were also given no instructions on how to manage their feelings.

In a seemingly unrelated task that followed, we asked the participants to come up with creative ideas to solve a problem at work.

In the experiments, conventional thinkers who tried reappraisal came up with ideas that were more creative than other conventional thinkers who used suppression, distraction or received no instructions at all.

Cultivating flexible thinking

Negative emotions are inevitable in work and life. Yet people often hide their negative feelings from others, or use distraction to avoid thinking about their frustrations.

Our findings have implications for how managers can think about how to best leverage the skills of their workers. Managers commonly slot job candidates into creative and noncreative jobs based on cues that signal creative potential. Not only are these cues shaky predictors of performance, but this hiring practice may also limit managers’ access to employees whose knowledge and experience can play major roles in generating creative outcomes.

The result is that the creative potential of a significant part of the workforce may be underutilized. Our findings suggest that supervisors can develop training and interventions to cultivate creativity in their employees – even for those who might not seem predisposed to creativity.

Our research also indicates that people can practice flexible thinking every day when they experience negative emotions. Although people may not always have control over the external circumstances, they do have the liberty to choose how to cope with emotional situations – and they can do so in ways that facilitate their productivity and well-being.

Lily Zhu, Assistant Professor of Management, Information Systems and Entrepreneurship, Washington State University

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

Federal Reserve’s ‘soft landing’ goal has become bumpier with rate hike plan hit by bank turbulence

A recession-free landing for the Fed may be harder now. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Ryan Herzog, Gonzaga University

Federal Reserve policymakers have targeted a “soft landing” for the U.S. economy since beginning their effort a year ago to tame runaway inflation by hiking interest rates. That is, they believed they could do so without sending the U.S. into recession.

But the Fed’s decision to raise rates by a quarter point on March 22, 2023, and modestly lift its projection for how much higher they will go in 2024 does little to ease the growing concerns about the health of regional banks.

As an economist who studies the macroeconomy, I believe this makes the soft landing scenario less likely.

Squeezing regional banks

The Fed’s latest moves suggest policymakers don’t expect the banking sector stress to spill over into the broader economy.

Had it believed so, it probably would have paused its rate hikes entirely.

Chair Jerome Powell, in a press conference following the announcement, assured the public that the banking system is strong, sound, resilient and has ample capital.

But the hike, paired with the acknowledgment of banking sector uncertainty, acts against those very assurances by creating additional stress. It will shrink lenders’ profit margins as the cost of funding continues to rise and tighter credit conditions force banks to dial back on lending.

This will be felt most by smaller regional banks and the communities they serve. Regional banks are a valuable source of credit for small businesses and mortgage lenders. As credit conditions tighten, it is becoming more likely the Fed may have been too aggressive in raising rates over the past year.

And while the Fed has said it stands at the ready to provide liquidity to banks, that won’t stop depositors from moving their money into safer institutions offering higher returns – which increases the risk of further bank runs, similar to those that felled Silicon Valley Bank.

Recession risks rising

In congressional testimony also on March 22, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. has no plans to provide “blanket insurance” for all deposits regardless of size – the current limit is US$250,000 – after earlier reports suggested that it might do just that.

Markets reacted badly to this news, coming at about the same time as the Fed decision.

Investors such as Bill Ackman worried this will lead to an acceleration of deposits fleeing regional banks.

In the end, I believe the rate hike will cause more harm in the banking sector than the Fed anticipates. And this reduces the likelihood of a soft landing – and increases the odds of recession.

Ryan Herzog, Associate Professor of Economics, Gonzaga University

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

Why does time change when traveling close to the speed of light? A physicist explains

Time gets a little strange as you approach the speed of light. ikonacolor/iStock via Getty Images

Michael Lam, Rochester Institute of Technology

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.

---

Why does time change when traveling close to the speed of light? – Timothy, age 11, Shoreview, Minnesota

---

Imagine you’re in a car driving across the country watching the landscape. A tree in the distance gets closer to your car, passes right by you, then moves off again in the distance behind you.

Of course, you know that tree isn’t actually getting up and walking toward or away from you. It’s you in the car who’s moving toward the tree. The tree is moving only in comparison, or relative, to you – that’s what we physicists call relativity. If you had a friend standing by the tree, they would see you moving toward them at the same speed that you see them moving toward you.

In his 1632 book “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” the astronomer Galileo Galilei first described the principle of relativity – the idea that the universe should behave the same way at all times, even if two people experience an event differently because one is moving in respect to the other.

If you are in a car and toss a ball up in the air, the physical laws acting on it, such as the force of gravity, should be the same as the ones acting on an observer watching from the side of the road. However, while you see the ball as moving up and back down, someone on the side of the road will see it moving toward or away from them as well as up and down.

Special relativity and the speed of light

Albert Einstein much later proposed the idea of what’s now known as special relativity to explain some confusing observations that didn’t have an intuitive explanation at the time. Einstein used the work of many physicists and astronomers in the late 1800s to put together his theory in 1905, starting with two key ingredients: the principle of relativity and the strange observation that the speed of light is the same for every observer and nothing can move faster. Everyone measuring the speed of light will get the same result, no matter where they are or how fast they are moving.

Let’s say you’re in the car driving at 60 miles per hour and your friend is standing by the tree. When they throw a ball toward you at a speed of what they perceive to be 60 miles per hour, you might logically think that you would observe your friend and the tree moving toward you at 60 miles per hour and the ball moving toward you at 120 miles per hour. While that’s really close to the correct value, it’s actually slightly wrong.

The experience of time is dependent on motion.

This discrepancy between what you might expect by adding the two numbers and the true answer grows as one or both of you move closer to the speed of light. If you were traveling in a rocket moving at 75% of the speed of light and your friend throws the ball at the same speed, you would not see the ball moving toward you at 150% of the speed of light. This is because nothing can move faster than light – the ball would still appear to be moving toward you at less than the speed of light. While this all may seem very strange, there is lots of experimental evidence to back up these observations.

Time dilation and the twin paradox

Speed is not the only factor that changes relative to who is making the observation. Another consequence of relativity is the concept of time dilation, whereby people measure different amounts of time passing depending on how fast they move relative to one another.

Each person experiences time normally relative to themselves. But the person moving faster experiences less time passing for them than the person moving slower. It’s only when they reconnect and compare their watches that they realize that one watch says less time has passed while the other says more.

This leads to one of the strangest results of relativity – the twin paradox, which says that if one of a pair of twins makes a trip into space on a high-speed rocket, they will return to Earth to find their twin has aged faster than they have. It’s important to note that time behaves “normally” as perceived by each twin (exactly as you are experiencing time now), even if their measurements disagree.

The twin paradox isn’t actually a paradox.

You might be wondering: If each twin sees themselves as stationary and the other as moving toward them, wouldn’t they each measure the other as aging faster? The answer is no, because they can’t both be older relative to the other twin.

The twin on the spaceship is not only moving at a particular speed where the frame of references stay the same but also accelerating compared with the twin on Earth. Unlike speeds that are relative to the observer, accelerations are absolute. If you step on a scale, the weight you are measuring is actually your acceleration due to gravity. This measurement stays the same regardless of the speed at which the Earth is moving through the solar system, or the solar system is moving through the galaxy or the galaxy through the universe.

Neither twin experiences any strangeness with their watches as one moves closer to the speed of light – they both experience time as normally as you or I do. It’s only when they meet up and compare their observations that they will see a difference – one that is perfectly defined by the mathematics of relativity.

---

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.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Michael Lam, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of Technology

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

Worst bank turmoil since 2008 means Federal Reserve is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t in decision over interest rates

Just hold your nose and make a decision. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Alexander Kurov, West Virginia University

The Federal Reserve faces a pivotal decision on March 22, 2023: whether to continue its aggressive fight against inflation or put it on hold.

Making another big interest rate hike would risk exacerbating the global banking turmoil sparked by Silicon Valley Bank’s failure on March 10. Raising rates too little, or not at all as some are calling for, could not only lead to a resurgence in inflation, but it could cause investors to worry that the Fed believes the situation is even worse than they thought – resulting in more panic.

What’s a central banker to do?

As a finance scholar, I have studied the close link between Fed policy and financial markets. Let me just say I would not want to be a Fed policymaker right now.

Break it, you bought it

When the Fed starts hiking rates, it typically keeps at it until something breaks.

The U.S. central bank began its rate-hiking campaign early last year as inflation began to surge. After initially mistakenly calling inflation “transitory,” the Fed kicked into high gear and raised rates eight times from just 0.25% in early 2022 to 4.75% in February 2023. This is the fastest pace of rate increases since the early 1980s – and the Fed is not done yet.

Consumer prices were up 6% in February from a year earlier. While that’s down from a peak annual rate of 9% in June 2022, it’s still significantly above the Fed’s 2% inflation target.

But then something broke. Seemingly out of nowhere, Silicon Valley Bank, followed by Signature Bank, collapsed virtually overnight. They had over US$300 billion in assets between them and became the second- and third-largest banks to fail in U.S. history.

Panic quickly spread to other regional lenders, such as First Republic, and upset markets globally, raising the prospect of even bigger and more widespread bank failures. Even a $30 billion rescue of First Republic by its much larger peers, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, failed to stem the growing unease.

If the Fed lifts interest rates more than markets expect – currently a 0.25 percentage point increase – it could prompt further anxiety. My research shows that interest rate changes have a much bigger effect on the stock market in bear markets – when there’s a prolonged decline in stock prices, as the U.S. is experiencing now – than in good times.

Making the SVB problem worse

What’s more, the Fed could make the problem that led to Silicon Valley Bank’s troubles even worse for other banks. That’s because the Fed is at least indirectly responsible for what happened.

Banks finance themselves mainly by taking in deposits. They then use those essentially short-term deposits to lend or make investments for longer terms at higher rates. But investing short-term deposits in longer-term securities – even ultra-safe U.S. Treasurys – creates what is known as interest rate risk.

That is, when interest rates go up, as they did throughout 2022, the values of existing bonds drop. SVB was forced to sell $21 billion worth of securities that lost value because of the Fed’s rate hikes at a loss of $1.8 billion, sparking its crisis. When SVB’s depositors got the wind of it and tried to withdraw $42 billion on March 9 alone – a classic bank run – it was over. The bank simply couldn’t meet the demands.

But the entire banking sector is sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of unrealized losses – $620 billion as of Dec. 31, 2022. And if rates continue to go up, the value of these bonds will keep going down, which fundamentally weakens banks’ financial situation.

The Fed has been aggressively raising rates to stem the rapid increase in prices for items such as food. AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

Risks of slowing down

While that may suggest it’s a no-brainer to put the rate hikes on hold, it’s not so simple.

Inflation has been a major problem plaguing the U.S. economy since 2021 as prices for homes, cars, food, energy and so much else jump for consumers. The last time consumer prices soared this much, in the early 1980s, the Fed had to raise rates so high that it sent the U.S. economy into recession – twice.

High inflation quickly cuts into how much stuff your money can buy. It also makes saving money more difficult because it eats at the value of your savings. When high inflation sticks around for a long time, it gets entrenched in expectations, making it very hard to control.

This is why the Fed jacked up rates so fast. And it’s unlikely it’s done enough to bring rates down to its 2% target, so a pause in lifting rates would mean inflation may stay higher for longer.

Moreover, stepping back from its one-year-old inflation campaign may send the wrong signal to investors. If central bankers show they are really concerned about a possible banking crisis, the market may think the Fed knows the financial system is in serious trouble and things are more dire than previously thought.

So what’s a Fed to do

At the very least, the complex global financial system is showing some cracks.

Three U.S. banks collapsed in a matter of days. Credit Suisse, a 166-year-old storied Swiss lender, was teetering on the edge until the government orchestrated a bargain sale to rival USB. A $30 billion rescue of regional U.S. lender First Republic was unable to arrest the drop in its shares. U.S. banks are requesting loans from the Fed like it’s 2008, when the financial system all but collapsed. And liquidity in the Treasury market – basically the blood that keeps financial markets pumping – is drying up.

Before Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, interest rate futures were putting the odds of an increase in rates – either 0.25 or 0.5 percentage point – on March 22 at 100%. The odds of no increase at all have shot up to as high as 45% on March 15 before falling to 30% early on March 20, with the balance of probability on a 0.25 percentage point hike.

Increasing rates at a moment like this would mean putting more pressure on a structure that’s already under a lot of stress. And if things take a turn for the worse, the Fed would likely have to do a quick U-turn, which would seriously damage the Fed’s credibility and ability to do its job.

Fed officials are right to worry about fighting inflation, but they also don’t want to light the fuse of a financial crisis, which could send the U.S. into a recession. And I doubt it would be a mild one, like the kind economists have been worried the Fed’s inflation fight could cause. Recessions sparked by financial crises tend to be deep and long – putting many millions out of work.

What would normally be a routine Fed meeting is shaping up to be a high-wire balancing act.

Alexander Kurov, Professor of Finance and Fred T. Tattersall Research Chair in Finance, West Virginia University

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

Simple ways to begin your morning

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

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.