Podcasts about previously dr

Discussions around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their role in public health have gained significant traction in recent years. While some advocate for categorizing and regulating these foods due to their potential negative health effects, others argue that such classifications can oversimplify the issue and detract from more actionable dietary changes. In this episode, Dr. Duane Mellor, a registered dietitian and researcher, joins us to explore the complexities of the UPF debate. Rather than dismissing the concept outright, Dr. Mellor emphasizes the importance of nuanced discussion, bridging the gap between research findings and practical, evidence-based dietary guidance. Throughout this conversation, we unpack the broader implications of ultra-processed foods in the food system, consider how added fat, salt, and sugar contribute to public health challenges, and explore realistic approaches for dietary improvements. Guest Information Dr. Duane Mellor, PhD is a registered dietitian, academic researcher and science communicator. Dr. Mellor is currently working in clinical dietetics, working to support people, families and carers living with diabetes. Previously Dr. Mellor worked in medical education at Aston University, holding the position of Associate Dean for Public Engagement in the College of Health and Life Sciences. After initially working in the areas of clinical trials, Dr. Mellor's other research interests focused on improving nutrition and health by working with communities to celebrate their heritage through food and help tackle barriers resulting from societal inequalities. Timestamps [03:02] Interview start [06:39] Understanding the NOVA classification [09:53] Potential pitfalls and policy implications [14:52] Food science and technology perspectives [20:47] Challenges in food classification [26:13] Health equity and policy considerations [42:31] Communication and public perception [50:30] Final thoughts and advice [51:15] Key ideas segment (Premium-only) Related Resources Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course Paper: Mellor, 2024 – The role of food science and technology in navigating the health issues of ultra-processed foods Go to sigmanutrition.com

Synopsis: Host Rahul Chaturvedi leads an insightful conversation with Dr. Kristin Yarema, President and CEO of Poseida Therapeutics. Kristin shares the inspiring journey of her career, from her roots in science to leadership roles in big pharma, culminating in her move to biotech entrepreneurship. She reflects on pivotal experiences at Novartis and Amgen, her deep-seated passion for oncology and autoimmune diseases, and the exciting leap into the field of cell therapy. Kristin unveils Poseida's innovative genetic engineering toolkit and the company's advancements in allogeneic cell therapies, spotlighting their potential to revolutionize treatment for conditions like multiple myeloma. She delves into the challenges and opportunities within the cell therapy space, underscoring Poseida's strategic partnerships and commitment to transformative solutions. With candid reflections on the lessons learned as a first-time CEO, Kristin offers valuable insights on fostering cohesive company culture and shares career advice for aspiring biotech professionals. An essential listen for anyone drawn to biotech innovation, the future of cell therapy, and leadership strategies at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and patient care. Biography: Dr. Yarema was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of Poseida and named to the Board of Directors in January 2024. She joined Poseida as President, Cell Therapy in April 2023, bringing extensive biopharmaceutical experience in oncology and allogeneic T cell immunotherapy. Prior to Poseida she served as Chief Commercial Officer at Atara Biotherapeutics, where she led the commercialization of EBVALLO™️, which became the world's first marketed allogeneic T cell therapy after receiving regulatory approval in Europe for the treatment of a rare lymphoma. Previously Dr. Yarema held a series of U.S. and global commercial leadership roles at Amgen, including most recently Vice President & Therapeutic Area Head for Global Product Strategy & Commercial Innovation in Hematology-Oncology. Earlier in her career, Dr. Yarema worked at Novartis and McKinsey & Company. Dr. Yarema holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from University of California, Berkeley and is a graduate of Stanford University, where she earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and a B.A. in English. She is an officer and member of the board of directors of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine and serves on the board of directors of the Celiac Disease Foundation.

On this episode of Airing Addiction:Sharif Nankoe, MD, MPA, MA, FASAM is the Chief Medical Director for Department of Corrections (DOC) Programs at Spectrum Health Systems, a nonprofit behavioral health organization based in Massachusetts.  His area of expertise is the treatment of opioid use disorder in jails and prisons, and he has been involved in the establishment of over 20 correctional MOUD programs.  Dr. Nankoe provides oversight, direction, and implementation of medical operations for the Massachusetts DOC MOUD Programs.  Previously Dr. Nankoe served as the Medical Director for the Vermont DOC Medications for Addiction Treatment Program, and worked in the Vermont Hub and Spoke system as the Medical Director of two Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) and two office-based opioid treatment clinics.  He is Board Certified in Addiction Medicine and Family Medicine.Join Jesse, Lisa, and Dr. Nankoe on this episode of Airing Addiction!

Send us a Text Message.Dr. Arti Garg, Ph.D. is Head of Technology Strategy & Evaluation, Office of the CTO and HPE Sr. Distinguished Technologist, at Hewlett Packard Enterprise ( https://www.hpe.com/us/en/home.html ). Previously Dr. Garg served as Deputy, Global CTO for Data & AI and Lead Sustainability & Edge Innovation Architect, as Chief Strategist for the AI Strategy & Solutions organization, overseeing HPE's advanced AI technology programs, and as Emerging Market and Technology Director, at Cray Inc. which was acquired by Hewlett Packard Enterprise in September 2019. Over her career, Dr. Garg has held several data science leadership roles in the computing and industrial sectors, including at Datapipe, NRG, and GE. In the past, Dr. Garg has also worked in the U.S. government, at the White House Budget Office where she oversaw over $5 billion of R&D investments at the Department of Energy, and as a legislative adviser in the U.S. Congress, as a American Physical Society-sponsored AAAS S&T Congressional Fellow. with the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Her science policy journey also includes working for the University of California, Office of the President (UCOP). Dr. Garg holds a Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard University, an MS in Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering from Stanford University, and she did post-doctoral work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as part of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. Dr Garg is also founder and chair of Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally ( ESAL - www.esal.us ), a national organization dedicated to increasing city, county, and state level engagement by professionals with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Support the Show.

Dr. William Kapp, MD is Chief Executive Officer of Fountain Life ( https://fountainlife.com/about/ ), a company focused on transforming the current healthcare system into one that is both proactive and data-driven, enabling enhanced longevity and catching and treating illnesses earlier than ever before, focusing on the detection and reversal of asymptomatic diseases and advancing an entirely new healthcare paradigm. Dr. Kapp received his B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of Georgia and his M.S. in Immunology and M.D. at the Medical College of Georgia, where he graduated with honors and was inducted into Alpha Omega Alpha, the medical honor society. He attended the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas for residency in Orthopaedic Surgery and completed his specialty training in 1994. Dr. Kapp is a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon and a Fellow in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, has served on the Board of Directors of the Missouri Orthopaedic Association and has been chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee. Until 2005, he served as flight surgeon in the US Air Force Reserves with the rank of Major. Dr. Kapp is a dynamic entrepreneur who has founded several healthcare start-ups, ranging from surgical centers and hospitals to electronic health record systems and medical real estate developments. Previously Dr. Kapp served as Founder and Chairman of Landmark Hospitals, with several regional referral centers for critical care and medically complex patients requiring hospital-based post-acute care; managing partner and leader for Physicians Alliance Surgery Center, a multi-specialty outpatient surgical center; and managing partner for Orthopaedic Associates of SE Missouri, the region's only orthopaedic center. Dr. Kapp is also a founding advisory board member of Missouri Physicians Mutual, a company focused on providing affordable medical malpractice insurance. Support the show

Dr. Subha Madhavan, Ph.D. is Vice President & Head of AI/ML, Quantitative & Digital Sciences, Global Biometrics & Data Management, at Pfizer ( https://www.pfizer.com/ ), where she works at the interface of science, technology, and business, helping to shape various aspects of their biopharma focus from small molecule design, to precision medicine, to global access in the future. Dr. Madhavan's responsibilities over her career have included initiating, designing, and executing several large national and international clinical research programs, including Cancer Moonshot, The Cancer Genome Atlas, Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, and Human Cell Atlas, and she has put together an impressive portfolio of experience in oncology R&D, precision medicine, digital health, data science & analytics, bioinformatics, product development, clinical informatics, and health IT. Before joining Pfizer, Dr. Madhavan was AstraZeneca's Head of Data Science, Oncology R&D where she led cross-functional teams in early oncology, clinical development, R&D strategy, precision medicine, and competitive intelligence in bringing life-changing therapies to patients. Previously Dr. Madhavan was the Director of the Innovation Center for Biomedical Informatics (ICBI) at the Georgetown University Medical Center, Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology, and chief Data Scientist for the Georgetown University Medical Center with responsibility for all data-related research initiatives. Dr. Madhavan has a Master's degree in Computer Information Systems from University of Maryland and a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Biological Sciences from the Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences through a highly ranked Indo-US Collaborative program. She received post-doctoral training in computational biology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Support the show

Data enablement has the power to transform American Healthcare. It can foster trust between patients and clinicians and make healthcare more accessible, affordable and equitable. This future of an open and connected health ecosystem may seem elusive, but it's not out of reach. Technology will not hold us back — instead our biggest challenge will be creating a value-based model of care where new innovations can thrive.   This week we our joined by Dr. David Feinberg, the Chairman of Oracle Health. Dr. Feinberg is committed to advancing thought leadership and strategy related to unleashing the healing power of data through an open and connected healthcare ecosystem.  Previously Dr. Feinberg served as president and CEO of Cerner, now Oracle Health, where he led teams delivering tools and technology to improve the patient and caregiver experience. He has also served as the VP of Google Health, and he served as the President and CEO of Geisinger where he led a complex turnaround and guided Geisinger's transition to value-based care.  Episode Bookmarks: 01:30 Introduction to Dr. David Feinberg, Chairman of Oracle Health. 02:45 The massive generation of data by humankind in the modern day (projected to be 175 Zettabytes by 2025). 03:45 Approximately 80% of healthcare data today is unstructured. 04:30 People are dying unnecessarily and suffering poor outcomes despite the amount of data generated by the healthcare system. 05:30 "Healthcare fundamentally is people caring for people. Data is secondary; the primary aspect of healthcare is trust.” 06:30 Making Electronic Health Records usable is of paramount importance (PCPs Need 27 Hours a Day to Do Their Best Work!) 07:00 Digitizing the medical record has made clinical workflows humanly impossible and compromises trust. 07:30 The vision for an open and connected health data ecosystem. 08:45 The Meaningful Use program did nothing for EHR usability (an example of the Gartner Hype Cycle). 10:00 Dr. Feinberg's clinical and executive leadership background provided a great lesson in technology adoption. 11:00 Can there be a high level of technology adoption in healthcare like Google dominates the non-healthcare marketplace? 12:30 We have solved for interoperability, but healthcare lacks a level of usability to allow a true longitudinal health record. 14:00 Motivating doctors for high performance ultimately comes down to the data scorecard. 15:00 Knowing the game (volume vs. value) and the promise of data enablement in value-based care. 16:00 The 21st Century Cures Act and the path forward in interoperability. 17:00 Can scalable FHIR-based interoperability and Open APIs eventually reach critical mass in the U.S. to improve population health? 19:45 Dr. Feinberg describes the two points of failure by technology companies trying to disrupt the healthcare ecosystem. 20:30 How Oracle Cerner is designing an intelligent, cloud-enabled platform to change healthcare for the better. 22:00 An example of disruption with Internet Banking and how application of those principles could change the healthcare system. 23:45 Digitization of medical records was a requisite first step. 24:00 Integration and normalization of disparate data sets provides an opportunity to create data intelligence. 25:00 How Larry Ellison's impatience for healthcare disruption clashes with the realities of the industry. 26:30 Recognizing the "life and death" aspects of healthcare transformation. 27:00 Making incremental progress with a digitized medical record…and then COVID happens to accelerate value-based care! 29:00 Workforce burnout and EHR usability - “Simplicity is the ultimate art of sophistication.” 30:00 “Value-based care is ultimately the best way to address the root cause of burnout in the workforce.” 30:45 The need for UX in the design of EHR applications to optimize physician workflow. 31:30 Results in usability redesign — ex: 19% reduction in nursing time at the terminal,

The University Kidney Research Organization ( UKRO - https://ukrocharity.org/ ) is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit charity, co-founded prominent entertainment attorney Kenneth Kleinberg, inspired by his personal journey with kidney disease, focused on supporting medical research and education related to the causes, treatment, and eradication of all forms of kidney disease. Dr. Andrew McMahon, Ph.D. ( https://keck.usc.edu/faculty-search/andrew-p-mcmahon/ ) is Director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC, Provost Professor and the inaugural holder of the W. M. Keck Professorship of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, and is responsible for overseeing UKRO's Synthetic Kidney Project. In addition, Dr. McMahon chairs the recently created Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at the Keck School. He also holds an appointment in the Department of Biological Sciences in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. Previously Dr. McMahon served as professor in the Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology and principal faculty member in the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, as well as led the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology at the Roche Institute for Molecular Biology. Dr. McMahon received his bachelor's degree from St. Peter's College, Oxford University and his Ph.D. from University College in London. He subsequently worked for three years as a postdoctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Lewis Kleinberg, a board member of UKRO and son of Kenneth Kleinberg, is a writer/producer who has written, developed and produced projects for Sony Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, New Regency, 21st Century Fox, TNT, Anonymous Content, BBC Productions, Renegade 83, Kapital Entertainment, and USA Network, among others, and currently creates and produces films for UKRO's website, media outreach, and benefit dinners. A graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts, he serves as an advisor to Donate Life Hollywood and as a mentor for USC's Compass program, which supports undergraduate students pursuing careers in regenerative medicine. Support the show

Investing in housing for Medicaid enrollees is one of the ways Dr. Bradley Gilbert has pioneered Whole Person Health in California. He's an original population health thinker, from his start as a county public health officer to decades of service as CEO of one of the nation's largest Medicaid managed care plans and his most recent role as Director of Health Care Services in California. Dr. Gilbert chats with Claudia about lessons learned along the way and why we need to focus on what's good for people, not just saving money. Relevant LinksEvaluation of IEHPs housing investmentOverview of CalAIMRecent CMS guidance for states offering social supports through Medicaid managed careAbout Our GuestDr. Bradley Gilbert, MD, MPP was Director of California's Department of Health Care Services in 2020 and helped lead the state through its first response to the COVID-19 pandemic and initial implementation of CalAIM. Before that Dr. Gilbert headed the Inland Empire Health Plan, one of the largest Medicaid Managed Care plans in the nation. IEHP serves more than a million Members in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties in California. Previously Dr. Gilbert was the Public Health Officer for San Mateo and Riverside Counties. While he was CEO at IEHP Brad was board chair of the organization Claudia led, Manifest MedExConnect With UsFor more information on The Other 80 please visit our website - www.theother80.com. To connect with our team, please email claudia@theother80.com and follow us on twitter @claudiawilliams or on LinkedIn.

This week Historians At The Movies gets into Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. And I've got two of the best damn historians working today to talk about it. And yes, we're ranking the hottest presidents of all time.About our guests: Dr. Lindsay M. Chervinsky is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University and currently is a fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. She received her B.A. with honors in history and political science from George Washington University, her masters and Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, and her postdoctoral fellowship from Southern Methodist University. Previously Dr. Chervinsky worked as a historian at the White House Historical Association. Her writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Ms. Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Bulwark, Time Magazine, USA Today, CNN, NBC Think, and the Washington Post. Dr. Chervinsky is the author of the award-winning book, The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, recently out in paperback, and the forthcoming book An Honest Man: The Inimitable Presidency of John Adams.Dr. Megan Kate Nelson is a historian and writer, with a BA from Harvard and a PhD in American Studies from the University of Iowa. She is the author of four books: Saving Yellowstone: Exploration and Preservation in Reconstruction America (Scribner 2022); The Three-Cornered War: The Union, the Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West (Scribner 2020; finalist for the 2021 Pulitzer Prize in History); Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War (Georgia, 2012); and Trembling Earth: A Cultural History of the Okefenokee Swamp (Georgia, 2005). Megan writes about the Civil War, the U.S. West, and American culture for The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Smithsonian Magazine, and TIME. For several years, she also wrote movie and TV series reviews for the Civil War Monitor. Before leaving academia to write full-time in 2014, Megan taught U.S. history and American Studies at Texas Tech University, Cal State Fullerton, Harvard, and Brown. She grew up in Colorado but now lives outside Boston with her husband and two cats. 

Episode Sponsor:This episode's Community Champion Sponsor is Catalyst. To virtually tour Catalyst and claim your space on campus, or host an upcoming event: CLICK HERE---Episode Overview: During this episode, I am honored and excited to welcome Dr. Tom Young, a board-certified family physician, a national mental health expert, and the Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Proem Behavioral Health. While together, Dr. Young shares how his company uses a fresh and innovative approach to deliver mental healthcare through an evidence-based behavioral health workflow engine that simplifies the complex process of delivering mental healthcare and helps providers and researchers get the data they need to make more informed clinical decisions and produce better outcomes for patients suffering from mental illness. Join us as we discuss how Dr. Young and the Proem Behavioral Health team are starting patients on the right path to improved mental health. Let's go! Episode Highlights:How Dr. Young started his career in the mental healthcare fieldThe ah-ha moments for creating Proem Behavioral HealthWhat biometric markers in behavioral health mean in 2023 and beyondThe effect of the pandemic on mental health and how Proem has helped others during these difficult timesAbout our Guest: Thomas R. Young, MD is a board-certified family physician with more than 35 years of medical experience. He is also a recognized thought leader on ways to better identify and manage mental health disorders, especially among adolescents and teens.Dr. Young currently serves as the Medical Director for Port of Hope in Nampa, ID, where he provides psychiatric services for clients with substance use disorders and co-occurring mental healthdisorders. Dr. Young is also the Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Proem Behavioral Health, a behavioral health technology company providing tools for physicians and researchers to help diagnose psychiatric disorders accurately and efficiently.Previously Dr. Young served for six years as the Medical Director of Idaho Medicaid and has remained active in the formation of medical and mental health policy for the state of Idaho. Dr. Young was also Chief Clinical / Medical Officer of Idaho Medicare QIO Qualis Health.Dr. Young also served as President of Behavioral Imaging Solutions, a technology firm recognized for its application of video imaging for the treatment of children with autism. Most recently, he served as Chief Operating Officer at US Preventive Medicine, a health technology leader in Population Health Management.He is also a successful entrepreneur. His business ventures include Diversified Franchises, LLC which owns a chain of specialty restaurants, a home health business, and Elite Sports Society, a successful sports marketing business where he serves as the business development officer.Links Supporting This Episode:Proem Behavioral Health website: CLICK HEREDr. Thomas Young LinkedIn page: CLICK HEREMike Biselli LinkedIn page: CLICK HEREMike Biselli Twitter page: CLICK HEREVisit our website:

Dr. Jeffrey B. Bacon, Ph.D., LTC (USA), is Co-Program Manager for B24IC, a Biointelligence and Biosecurity program for the U.S. Intelligence Community, at the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity ( IARPA - https://www.iarpa.gov/ ), which seeks to develop new capabilities, matching the wider synthetic biology and biotechnology fields, ensuring the Intelligence Community's (IC's) capability to meet the biointelligence and biosecurity threats of the 21st century. Dr. Bacon has a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Biology / Environmental Science, from Norwich University; a Masters of Science in Engineering Management, from Missouri University of Science and Technology; a Master of Science (MS) in Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction – Biodefense, from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology; and a Doctor of Philosophy - PhD, in International Relations and National Security Studies, from The Fletcher School at Tufts. Previously Dr. Bacon also spent over 25 years at United States Department of the Army as a Nuclear Strategy and Counterproliferation Officer, US Army Corps of Engineers Regiment, as well as serving time as Branch Chief, US Army Nuclear CWMD Agency. Dr. Bacon also served as Department Chair, Counterproliferation & Information and Influence Intelligence, at National Intelligence University; as Interagency Chair/Army Senior Service Advisor, National Intelligence University while at the Defense Intelligence Agency; as Team Lead, Data Analytics and Predictive Modeling, on the DoD Coronavirus-2019 Task Force; and as Executive Officer/Program Manager, Research and Development Directorate, Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Relevant Information Links - https://www.iarpa.gov/who-we-are/about-us https://ni-u.edu/wp/ https://app.brazenconnect.com/events/dbrZJ?utm_medium=website&utm_source=orisecalendar&utm_campaign=vcf012523 Support the show

In 2010  Ellen Dunham Jones gave a TedTalk on retrofitting the suburbs and repurposing malls. In 2021, Kedar Mate et al authored a piece in Harvard Business Review Why Health Care Systems Should Invest in Medical Malls Kedar Mate, MD, is the President and Chief Executive Officer at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), President of the Lucian Leape Institute, and a member of the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Mate's scholarly work has focused on health system design, health care quality, strategies for achieving large-scale change, and approaches to improving value. Previously Dr. Mate worked at Partners In Health, the World Health Organization, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and served as IHI's Chief Innovation and Education Officer.  Dr. Mate has published numerous peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and white papers and has received multiple honors including serving as a Soros Fellow, Fulbright Specialist, Zetema Panelist, and an Aspen Institute Health Innovators Fellow. He graduated from Brown University with a degree in American History and from Harvard Medical School with a medical degree.  You can follow him on twitter at @KedarMate Ian Sinnett, AIA, ACHA, is a Principal and board-certified healthcare architect who co-leads the Dallas Health Practice for Perkins&Will. His expertise is concentrated on the strategic, pre-design, programming, and planning phases of projects furthered by a continued level of intensity and project engagement through completion and first-patient. Ian has worked with a range of for-profit, developer, rural, academic, and not-for-profit clients including MD Anderson Cancer Center, HCA, UT Southwestern, Children's Health, Penn Medicine, Legacy Community Health, and RedBird Dallas. Notable recent projects include critical access hospitals in Uvalde, TX and Pecos, TX, a complete reconfiguration and expansion of the Lancaster General Health ED (15th busiest in the US), and acting as the Principal in Charge of the RedBird Mall Sears Dark Store revitalization with UT Southwestern and Children's Health in Southern Dallas. Outside of his professional life, Ian travels the world with his wife, is a volunteer and advocate for Big Brothers Big Sisters, and is building his dream get-a-away in the high deserts of West Texas.

Dr. Doug Mader joins Dr. Andy Roark to talk about his new book, The Vet at Noah's Ark: Stories of Survival from an Inner-City Animal Hospital. They discuss Dr. Mader's career in inner-city LA during and immediately after the Rodney King trial in the early 1990s, Dr. Mader's evolution as both writer and veterinarian, and Dr. Mader's view of where veterinary medicine is going in the future. From the publisher: From renowned veterinarian Dr. Doug Mader comes a stirring account of his fight to protect his animal patients and human staff amid the dangerous realities of inner-city life and the Los Angeles riots—and a celebration of the remarkable human-animal bond. The life of a veterinarian is challenging: keeping up with advances in medical care, making difficult decisions about people's beloved companions, and, in Dr. Doug Mader's case, navigating the social unrest in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. As one of the few exotic animal experts in California, he was just as likely to be treating a lion as a house cat. The Vet at Noah's Ark: Stories of Survival from an Inner-City Animal Hospital follows Dr. Mader and his staff over the course of a year at Noah's Ark Veterinary Hospital, an inner-city LA area veterinary hospital where Dr. Mader treats not only dogs and cats, but also emus, skunks, snakes, foxes, monkeys, and a host of other exotic animals. This real life drama is set against the backdrop of the trial of four police officers in the Rodney King case, as well as the violent aftermath following their acquittal. LINKS: The Vet at Noah's Ark: https://www.amazon.com/Vet-Noahs-Ark-Survival-Inner-City/dp/1954641044/ Dr. Doug Mader's Wedsite: https://www.dougmader.com/ Dr. Doug Mader on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/douglas.mader.9 NEW Dr. Andy Roark Exam Room Communication Tool Box Course: https://drandyroark.com/store/ What's on my Scrubs?! Card Game: https://drandyroark.com/training-tools/ Dr. Andy Roark Swag: drandyroark.com/shop All Links: linktr.ee/DrAndyRoark ABOUT OUR GUEST: Douglas R. Mader, MS, DVM, Diplomate ABVP (Canine/Feline), Diplomate, ABVP (Reptile/Amphibian), Diplomate, ECZM (Herpetology), Fellow, Royal Society of Medicine Dr. Mader received his DVM from the University of California, Davis in 1986. In addition, he completed a Residency in Primate and Zoo animal medicine. He is the consulting veterinarian for the Monroe County Sheriff's Zoo, the Key West Aquarium, Dynasty Marine, the Sea Turtle Hospital, the Everglades Alligator Farm and the Theater of the Sea. Previously Dr. Mader owned the Marathon Veterinary Hospital, a double AAHA accredited 24 hr emergency/referral hospital. Dr. Mader is an internationally acclaimed lecturer and is on the review boards of several scientific journals. He has published numerous articles in scientific and veterinary journals, national magazines, and, is the author/editor and co-editor of three textbooks on Reptile Medicine and Surgery.­­ Dr. Mader's latest project is his new book “The Vet at Noah's Ark - Stories of Survival from an Inner-city Animal Hospital.”

Dr. Doug Mader joins the podcast to discuss treatment of a wounded tortoise that won't come out of his shell. This 10 year-old Sulcata was attacked by a dog and needs care, but has pulled back tightly into his shell making treatment difficult. In this episode, we discuss tortoise sedation and analgesia, antibiotic therapy and feeding tube placement. LINKS: Dr. Mader's New Book: https://www.amazon.com/Vet-Noahs-Ark-Survival-Inner-City/dp/1954641044 Dr. Mader's Website: https://www.dougmader.com/ Dr. Mader's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/douglas.mader.9 NEW Dr. Andy Roark Exam Room Communication Tool Box Course: https://drandyroark.com/store/ What's on my Scrubs?! Card Game: https://drandyroark.com/training-tools/ Dr. Andy Roark Swag: drandyroark.com/shop All Links: linktr.ee/DrAndyRoark ABOUT OUR GUEST: Douglas R. Mader, MS, DVM, Diplomate ABVP (Canine/Feline), Diplomate, ABVP (Reptile/Amphibian), Diplomate, ECZM (Herpetology), Fellow, Royal Society of Medicine Dr. Mader received his DVM from the University of California, Davis in 1986. In addition, he completed a Residency in Primate and Zoo animal medicine. He is the consulting veterinarian for the Monroe County Sheriff's Zoo, the Key West Aquarium, Dynasty Marine, the Sea Turtle Hospital, the Everglades Alligator Farm and the Theater of the Sea. Previously Dr. Mader owned the Marathon Veterinary Hospital, a double AAHA accredited 24 hr emergency/referral hospital. Dr. Mader is an internationally acclaimed lecturer and is on the review boards of several scientific journals. He has published numerous articles in scientific and veterinary journals, national magazines, and, is the author/editor and co-editor of three textbooks on Reptile Medicine and Surgery.­­ Dr. Mader's latest project is his new book “The Vet at Noah's Ark - Stories of Survival from an Inner-city Animal Hospital.”

Terri Goss Kinzy Ph.D. serves as the 20th President of Illinois State University. She started her career at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) rising to professor in the Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Pediatrics. At Rutgers, Dr. Kinzy served as Vice President for Research. Dr. Kinzy then joined Western Michigan University in 2018 as Vice President of Research and Innovation and Professor of Biological Sciences. Previously Dr. Kinzy was elected to the University Master Educator Guild, selected as a Bridges to the Professoriate Faculty Mentor of the Year from the Compact for Faculty Diversity, and named a Crain's Detroit Notable Woman in STEM. She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Her mentoring of others has been recognized with the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research Outstanding Mentor Award and the R. Walter Schlesinger Basic Science Mentoring Award. Dr. Kinzy is recognized as a world leader in the study of protein synthesis. Her work has been funded by numerous sponsors including the NIH, the NSF as a CAREER Award recipient, the Human Frontiers Science Program, and numerous foundations and corporations.

A 6 month-old bearded dragon presents for shaking and not eating. Dr. Doug Mader walks us through the best way to approach this case and discusses why Metabolic Bone Disease (MBD) is a term we should think twice about using. LINKS: Dr. Mader's Website: https://www.dougmader.com/ Follow Dr. Mader on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/170060086888423/user/1416949546 Retain Your Team - Speak the Languages of Appreciation in Your Workplace: https://unchartedvet.com/product/appreciation-languages-101/ What's on my Scrubs?! Card Game: https://drandyroark.com/training-tools/ Dr. Andy Roark Swag: drandyroark.com/shop All Links: linktr.ee/DrAndyRoark ABOUT OUR GUEST: Douglas R. Mader, MS, DVM, Diplomate ABVP (Canine/Feline), Diplomate, ABVP (Reptile/Amphibian), Diplomate, ECZM (Herpetology), Fellow, Royal Society of Medicine Dr. Mader received his DVM from the University of California, Davis in 1986. In addition, he completed a Residency in Primate and Zoo animal medicine. He is the consulting veterinarian for the Monroe County Sheriff's Zoo, the Key West Aquarium, Dynasty Marine, the Sea Turtle Hospital, the Everglades Alligator Farm and the Theater of the Sea. Previously Dr. Mader owned the Marathon Veterinary Hospital, a double AAHA accredited 24 hr emergency/referral hospital. Dr. Mader is an internationally acclaimed lecturer and is on the review boards of several scientific journals. He has published numerous articles in scientific and veterinary journals, national magazines, and, is the author/editor and co-editor of three textbooks on Reptile Medicine and Surgery.­­ Dr. Mader's latest project is his new book “The Vet at Noah's Ark - Stories of Survival from an Inner-city Animal Hospital.”

Dr. Roger Kangas, Ph.D. Academic Dean and Professor Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University TNWAC Global Town Hall at Belmont University, March 31, 2022 @ 6:00 p.m. CT with Moderator, Dr. Thomas A Schwartz, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of History of U.S. Foreign Relations, Vanderbilt University Transcript available at TNWAC.org | Support the Tennessee World Affairs Council by becoming a member and making a contribution | Sign up for the newsletter | All on TNWAC.org Dr. Roger Kangas – Academic Dean and a Professor of Central Asian Studies at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. Previously Dr. Kangas served as a Professor of Central Asian Studies at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; Deputy Director of the Central Asian Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, DC; Central Asian Course Coordinator at the Foreign Service Institute for the U.S. Department of State; Research Analyst on Central Asian Affairs for the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI) in Prague, Czech Republic; and as an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Mississippi. Dr. Kangas has been an advisor to the Combatant Commands, NATO/ISAF, the US Air Force Special Operations School, National Democratic Institute, International Research and Exchanges Board, American Councils, Academy for Educational Development, USIA, USAID, and other US government agencies on issues relating to Central and South Asia, Russia, and the South Caucasus. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University. Dr. Kangas holds a B.S.F.S. in Comparative Politics from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University. Dr. Thomas A. Schwartz Thomas Alan Schwartz is a historian of the foreign relations of the United States, with related interests in American politics, the history of international relations, Modern European history, and biography. His most recent book is Henry Kissinger and American Power: A Political Biography (Hill and Wang, 2020). The book has received considerable notice and acclaim. Harvard's University's Charles Maier has written: “Thomas Schwartz's superbly researched political biography reveals the brilliance, self-serving ego, and vulnerability of America's most remarkable diplomat in the twentieth century, even as it provides a history of U.S. engagement in global politics as it moved beyond bipolarity.” Earlier in his career, Schwartz was the author of America's Germany: John J. McCloy and the Federal Republic of Germany (Harvard, 1991), which was translated into German, Die Atlantik Brücke (Ullstein, 1992). This book received the Stuart Bernath Book Prize of the Society of American Foreign Relations, and the Harry S. Truman Book Award, given by the Truman Presidential Library. He is also the author of Lyndon Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam (Harvard, 2003), which examined the Johnson Administration's policy toward Europe and assessed the impact of the war in Vietnam on its other foreign policy objectives. He is the co-editor with Matthias Schulz of The Strained Alliance: U.S.-European Relations from Nixon to Carter, (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, associate professor in George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and global fellow in the Wilson Center's Latin America Program, leads a conversation on the future of U.S.-Mexico relations.   CASA: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I am Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera with us to discuss the future of U.S.-Mexico relations. Dr. Correa-Cabrera is associate professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and global fellow in the Latin America Program at the Wilson Center. She also serves as nonresident scholar at the Center for the United States and Mexico in Rice University's Baker Institute, is a fellow at Small Wars Journal-El Centro, and is co-editor of the International Studies Perspectives Journal. Previously Dr. Correa-Cabrera was principal investigator of a research grant to study organized crime and trafficking in persons in Central America and Mexico, supported by the U.S. Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. She is past president of the Association for Borderland Studies and the author of several books. Welcome, Guadalupe. CORREA-CABRERA: Thank you, Maria. CASA: Thank you very much for speaking with us today. CORREA-CABRERA: Thank you, Maria. Thank you very much to everyone, especially the Council on Foreign Relations, for the opportunity to talk to you about the relationships of my two countries, the United States and Mexico. So today, I'm going to start by explaining what is the current state of Mexico-U.S. relations, but in the context of a very important event that took place some days ago, in the context of the U.S.-Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities. The bicentennial—so-called Bicentennial Understanding. There was a concern at the beginning of the current administration in the United States that the relationships between the United States and Mexico were going to be difficult. Notwithstanding the last, the current year has been extremely productive in many areas. And with this new understanding, the Bicentennial Understanding, that it states in the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities, the United States and Mexico's relation has been reframed in a very important way. There is an understanding that the Mérida initiative that had been the center of the relationship between the United States and Mexico, focused on security, needed to be reframed. And then, you know, that was—that was considered that the priorities remained the same, the priorities of the two countries, with some changes that I'm going to be talking about. But the three—I mean, the high-level understanding, this high-level meeting told us what's supposed to be—I mean, where we're going to see in the future. So I just wanted to point out some of the points that were discussed. This framework was informed by each country's security priorities, that I'm going to be talking about. And the focus is addressing violence, but through a response that's driven by justice and use of intelligence against organized crime, and based on tactical cooperation in law enforcement, based on the previous mistakes that had been identified. But currently, the focus would be on public health and development as a part of the strategy of cooperation between the two countries. I'm taking some words from the—from the communique of this understanding. And, you know, with the consideration of—for a more secure and prosperous region, the Mexico-U.S. Bicentennial Framework serves to reaffirm the friendship and cooperation that exists between the two nations. You know, as you see, the language is very friendly. It's based on an understanding that the relationship is important, cooperation is important. Apparently the two countries are in the same boat in this regard. The United States recognizes that support of militarization is not the way probably to go. And a greater focus on public health and development to address the root causes of violence in the southern hemisphere, particularly in Mexico, is probably the way to go, with an understanding to promote a more secure and prosperous region. There are four themes—I mean, this is the idea. This was—I mean, that was the conversation that's on the table. We don't necessarily know ourselves today how this is going to be implemented, what are the particular policies that—or, the collaboration, or the amounts of money to make this happen. But this is kind of like the idea of the future of this collaboration. However, I am going to be talking about the opportunities, and particularly the challenges, considering the priorities of the two nations that, in a way, and when we have the meetings of this type, and when we listen to the language and read the media and talk to the politicians that were present, we have a sense. But then when everybody goes home, we kind of, like, think about this better and we see opportunities, but more challenges than we initially thought. So there are four main things in the United States-Mexico relations that need to be highlighted, plus one that has been also always important but today is more important due to the pandemic. Which is the theme of public health, where an important collaboration between Mexico and the United States has been observed but at the same time poses certain challenges with regard to the border management. Title 42 is still in place and the borders are going to be opened gradually, considering, you know, the vaccination status of people. But that has had a major impact on border communities, and certain impacts on trade and development, particularly at the U.S.-Mexico border. The other four main themes of U.S. Mexico relations that I want to talk about are immigration, security, trade, and energy. I mean, I don't want to place them in order of priority. I think that energy is going to define the future of Mexico-U.S. relations, but I'm going to mention the four in the context of the present—I mean, the present situation. So with regards to trade, the successful passage and, you know, implementation of renegotiation of NAFTA, today in the shape of USMCA, has been extremely successful. Poses some challenges, of course. And this is going to be connected with the last subject we'll be talking about, the proposal of the Mexican government to reform the electricity sector. This is something that is going to be very, very important, and what are the priorities of the United States in the framework of build back better? But with regards to trade, apparently their relationships could not be, you know, better than today. There are some challenges, of course, that have to be with labor rights and unions in Mexico that would cause some loss of competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. And in the framework build back better, of course, this is going to benefit the United States and it's going probably to affect the manufacturing sector of Mexico. Let's see how it works. But with regards to trade, things are mainly, you know, stable, with exception of the future. And this is going to be very, very important. The potential passage, we don't really know, it's very difficult that the electricity reform in Mexico will pass. But anyway, the president—the current president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has a very important amount of—I mean, segment of the population, and a very important support from his base that might help him to achieve his goal. I see it very differently, but we'll talk about that. So the next area that I would like to talk about is immigration. Here we have enormous challenges, enormous challenges that have been visualized with, you know, the current situations at the border that started since the beginning of this administration. During the past years, I mean, they had started to be increasing in magnitude, or at least in visibility. As I mentioned, Title 42 is maintained, and the migration protection protocol—Migrant Protection Protocols, so Stay in Mexico program, where a number of asylum seekers would have to wait for their cases to be decided in Mexico, there's a new definition in this framework. The Supreme Court of the United States very recently made a decision with regards to the reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols. In the beginning the Department of Homeland Security, you know, made the declaration that they would—they would continue with that, but very recently they intention is not to continue with the Migrant Protection Protocols. In the end, and this is why this is very important in the very current conversation, in the end the continuation of this—of this program that has been highly criticized. Then it's also—it has put the human rights of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers at risk. That might—this will not work if Mexico—if the government of Mexico does not accept it. We have to see what is going to be the result. But we have a definition in this regard. The role of Mexico is key in the management of the U.S.-Mexico border, in the management of what some call migrant crisis, and then a crisis at the border. We observed that crisis very recently with a number of Haitian citizens that all left their country, went to South America, and from South America—from countries such as Ecuador, Brazil, Chile—traveled north through different countries, finding different challenges and dangers, and arrived to one point of the U.S.-Mexico border, with the help of a number of actors, such as migrant smugglers and corrupt authorities, but with the aim of making—I mean, escaping a terrible life and making a better life in the United States. We have a caravan that's now in direction to Mexico City. They were going go—they will put their demands on the table, but their intent is to continue going to the United States. There is a very big definition with regards to the migrant crisis, or what some call the migrant crisis, and the immigration issues that the government of the United States has recognized very accurately, and the Mexican government too, that there need to be collaboration to address the root causes of the situation that has to do with the development of the countries of Central America, of South America. And, you know, to achieve stability in South America, probably not through militarization. Secretary Blinken in a very surprising statement has led us to believe that today the United States is also reframing its aid to Latin America, to Central America and the Caribbean. And the focus is not going to be in aid in military equipment or in the militarization of the region. This is very important. And this brings me to talk about the third important—the third theme in the U.S.-Mexico relations. Mexico's security—the relationship of Mexico and the United States in the past few years has been focused on this connection between security and immigration. That's in the end centered on a specific attention of border enforcement, of border security cooperation. The situation in Mexico has deteriorated in the past few years, and the situation has not improved in an important way. Mexico's homicides remained at high levels, despite the pandemic. During the pandemic the decrease was very small, but today and we expect that this year the homicide rate continues growing in a trend that does not seem to be going down. The approach of the Mexican government since the transition period was—I mean, I can be summarized in the phrase talks not bullets. Which means, like, a completely—I mean, a complete shift of the declaration of Mexico's war on drugs to some other, like, approaches that will focus as well to solve the root causes of violence insecurity in Mexico, mainly development frameworks. However, the prior militarization of criminal groups in different parts of the country, and the events—the shootings and the diversification of criminal activities by armed groups in the country—has also caused a very complicated situation. The count of homicides in Mexico shows that killings remain essentially unchanged, more than 36,000 homicides in the year 2020. As I mentioned before, this year we expect an important increase. I don't know what will be the magnitude, but we have observed since the beginning of the year very unfortunate events. For example, at the U.S.-Mexico border, in the city of Reynosa, the massacre of migrants, and also assassinations and disappearances in a very key highway of Mexico from Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey. We still remember the Culiacanazo in the year 2019, which was a very complicated year. And today the situation in states like Michoacán, Guerrero, and Sinaloa, the massacres that be found, and people who disappear—or, that remain disappeared, is a very big concern, both to Mexico and the United States. There is not really an understanding of how this collaboration with regards to security will be framed. However, there was a very big advancement in the Bicentennial Understanding initial talks that the Mérida Initiative, at least on paper, supposed to be ending. But there's going to be a focus on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, probably in a different way and not with a focus on the military sector or on armed forces. At least, this is what we have on the paper. Mexico has been very straightforward with regards—and very critical with regards to the role of the DEA. And that has caused several tensions in this relationship. We also have the issue of security and the—I mean, the priorities of the United States with regards to build back better proposal or reform. And then we have, as I said, the reform of the electric sector in the Mexico state, who want to recover the control of the management of electricity, of the electricity market, and the capacity of the state to manage the lithium. So Mexico has—and the Mexican government has three main projects: the construction of the refinery in—the Dos Bocas in Tabasco, the Santa Lucia airport, and the Maya Train. There is a tension between Mexico and the United States with regards to priorities. Mexico has a priority to continue with the support of oil and gas. This is—this is reflected in the construction of the refinery. And here, we're probably going to see the main point of tension. Because of build back better and the commitment with build back better, and also focus on U.S. internal markets where Mexico has been benefitting from the growth of its manufacturing sector. We don't really know how this is going to be playing out, but at least, you know, on paper things are going to be good. But definitely the priorities with regards to energy are very different, and the focus of the U.S.-Mexico government on the lessening of climate change. And this focus is going to be very different—very difficult. The United States is committed to meet its climate goals, create millions of jobs inside the United States. And that has really changed their relationship. So we can talk more about these. Thank you for listening to this. And as I said, we'll probably be talking a lot about energy and the inequalities that public health and vaccination rates, that will also cause tensions. And immigration is another point that we need to talk about in greater depth. Thank you. CASA: Thank you, Guadalupe, for that introduction. There certainly is a lot to talk about. Now let's open this up to questions from our participants. (Gives queuing instructions.) Let's see. We will start with a written question from Paul Haber, who's a professor at University of Montana. He asks: Can you please provide some detail regarding the changes in labor required in Mexico by the USMCA? And what has happened to date? And do you expect a real deepening of the reforms between now and the end of the AMLO administration? CORREA-CABRERA: This is a very important question. With regard to the USMCA, mainly the main point that might cause tensions have to do—has to do with labor unions, particularly in the maquiladora sector, in manufacturing sector. The United States has been very clear with regards to that requirement, but that would, at the same time, lower the competitiveness of Mexico's manufacturing sector. As I said, there have been, I mean, in the past couple of years an attempt to create independent labor unions in the maquiladora sector, but there are still extreme tensions. And there have not been a real advance in this—in this sense. But at the same time, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, with his theme of primero los pobres, the poor first, and a support of Mexican labor, an increase—a very important increase since the beginning of his administration of wages, he is supposedly committed to help Mexican workers and to—and he has been focused as well on supporting not only the labor unions or the labor sector, but with his social programs that have been, I mean, advertised a great extent. Such as Jóvenes Construyendo el Futuro, the Youth Constructing Future, which is a very important, for him, but also very criticized program. And the support of mothers without—I mean, single mothers. And, I mean Youth Constructing Future for those who don't have jobs. So on the one hand Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also in order to continue building his base of support or maintaining his base of support, focused—has focused on these programs, these social programs, that are not necessarily just focused on labor, as the way that the United States wants this to be seen in order to also rebuild the economy by changing the focus to internal development. I don't see in that regard if what—if your interest comes from the United States, what has happened with the union is—with the labor unions and their capacity to really, I mean, grow in the Mexican manufacturing sector—I don't see—I don't see a lot of advancement in that area. And definitely in this regard, there are very different priorities in Mexico versus the United States. But Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been able to convince a number of his supporters, a number of Mexican workers, because he has increased in a very important way Mexican wages. And he is probably going to be able to achieve more increases when the elections—the presidential elections approach. But definitely we don't see very definite changes with regards to this area as the USMCA has been posed. CASA: Next we have a raised hand from Sherice Nelson, assistant professor at Southern University in Baton Rouge. Sherice. Q: Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your talk. And I appreciate you leaving time for us to ask questions. As a professor, how do—the biggest challenge often is to get students to back away from some of the stereotypical information they get about U.S.-Mexico and the relationship, and the centering of that—of that relationship on immigration, when there's far—as you mentioned—there are far other issues that define our relationship. Where are places that we can lead students to, to get better information that is not as stereotypical about the relationship, that will pique their interest? Thanks so much. CORREA-CABRERA: That's a very important question. Thank you for asking. And absolutely, there is a way to present the issue on immigration, to place it in a political perspective—either from the right side or the left. The problem with immigration and the quality development and the access for jobs—I mean, it has been studied in depth by Mexican academics, United States academics. Issues have more to do with development and with the jobs that are offered in the United States, the pull and push factors of undocumented immigration, for example. And we have very different areas to be thinking about migration or immigration. And the focus recently has been at the border, has been with regards to asylum seekers, has been politicized in the United States, while many other areas have been, to some extent, ignored. There are—for educators, there are a number of analyses. One particular area that's important to know, it's United States—I mean, immigrants—how immigrants in the United States, coming from different countries, have been able to develop, have been able to make this country great. That's one area that we have to focus on. And there is a lot of information in that regard. Another, I mean, issue that it's important to know are the pull and push factors of undocumented immigration. And one important factor that usually we're not focused on are the jobs that exist in the United States, and the perspective from—I mean, the undocumented immigration from the perspective of employers. And that is connected to this analysis of the role of immigrants in the United States. Where are they coming from? What are they doing? How they came here, and not just of those who want to come. Another issue that has been widely covered is the one that has to do with migration. Migration flows that start in countries such as Chile, that dangerous journey where that media has been focused on, without analyzing this as a whole, without analyzing this understand that there are jobs in the United States, there is a comprehensive immigration reform that's on the table, and that that comprehensive immigration reform will definitely help to solve the problems of a system that needs the, I mean, immigrants to continue working, but it's creating all sorts of problem. The disfunctions of U.S. immigration system have been identified. There is a proposal that's bipartisan to solve these issues with temporary visas, pathway towards citizenship for those that are already here, that already have jobs, that already contribute to this economy. But unfortunately, immigration is definitely, as you correctly mention, a subject that has been utilized, that has been polarized, because it touches very important sentiments of the electorate. And we don't understand it. Definitely the immigration system in the United States needs to change. And there are—there is a very important amount of articles, of studies that analyze not just those who want to come or the so-called migrant crisis at the border, but how the market in the United States works, the labor markets, what undocumented migrants do in the United States, how to solve these issues with these bipartisan efforts that have been put together in documents, such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and also those that want to work. And many of these problems would probably be solved through the mechanisms that think tanks, and analysts, and academics have done. Important work by think tanks like the Migration—MPI, the Migration Policy Institute, or the—I mean, other initiatives in Mexico. There have been a lot of—there's a lot of information about the possible policies to solve these issues. It's important to consider that information is there, that the work is done, but the problem is the coverage. And definitely our students need to go to understand the suggested—the suggested solutions, creating legal pathways to migration, to temporary work in the United States, is probably the way to go. But unfortunately, we got into these politicized moments, and these electoral moments, and the discourse gets politicized. But there is a lot there, a lot of analysis, a lot of proposals that you can find. Amazing work, both in the United States, in Mexico, and in many other countries of the Americas, because right now the issue of undocumented immigration, irregular immigration does not only have to do with Mexico and the United States. Immigrants have to pass through Mexico in order to get to where they want to go in order to go where the works are located. But we know and we have seen that a number of people, for example, that what was called the Haitian crisis at the border, like, the journey was done from countries as far as Chile, and so many countries have to deal with that. For example, the situation in Venezuela—many migrants that have been—I mean, finding jobs and a home in Colombia temporarily are also going—also moving up and are going to the border. So there's a lot there, and our students, you know, can find a lot of information. It's just to get out of the media discourses that are presented and that do not allow us to see the reality. But there is a lot out there that we can access, particularly for our students. CASA: Our next question is a written question and comes from Pedro Izquierdo, a graduate student at George Mason University. He asks, what improvements and flaws do you see in the bicentennial framework regarding arms trafficking, unlike the Mérida Initiative? CORREA-CABRERA: Well, it's—the Bicentennial Understanding is not—at this point it's just a number of good wishes and the recognition of certain problems. Arms trafficking has been recognized in this Bicentennial Understanding. As of today, we don't really know what the United States is going to be able to do with regards to arms trafficking, and there is a very important and complicated situation here because in the United States it's not by decree, it's not by—I mean, the arms possession and the way that United States citizens understand their rights with regards to bearing arms. It's a constitutional right; therefore—and there's a lot of—you know, there's a very, very big business that will not end so easily. Therefore, the two countries might, you know, might agree on—I mean verifying or collaborating to end or to lessen the issue of arms smuggling. However, this is going to be very difficult unless something important happens in the United States with regards to the legislation to place some limits on the bearing of arms. This is very important. As of today, Pedro, there is not a concrete plan of how the two countries are going to collaborate in this regard. As we know, the minister of foreign affairs—I mean the Mexican government through the minister of foreign affairs, I mean, has a lawsuit against United States arms manufacturers with regards to the arms that come to Mexico and end up in the hands of drug traffickers. There is nothing else that it's current today where we will know what the two countries are going to be doing. And this is the same with many of the good wishes, many of the areas of the collaboration, the end of the Mérida Initiative and the beginning of this understanding. We really don't know what specific programs are going to be implemented and how these programs are going to be implemented, how much money is going to be directed to these programs at this time. We just have an understanding of how the priorities can get together to improve and to reframe, to some extent, the collaboration in terms of security and development. CASA: Next we are going to a raised hand; we have Terron Adlam, an undergraduate student at Delaware State University. Please go ahead, Terron. Q: Can you hear me now? CASA: Yes. Q: Hi. Yes. So I'm thinking about more the energy sector of this talk. So in Mexico I know there's a lot of geothermal activity, so isn't there a more effective way of, like—because global warming is increasing more and more as time goes on, like, the flooding, the overheating of the ozone, stuff like—couldn't geothermal usage be more effective in Mexico and solar too, versus the oil refineries? CORREA-CABRERA: This is a very important question. The understanding of climate change in the United States is very different from Mexico. In the developed world, the concern about the environment has been focused—I mean, this has now been the center of the discussion and the center of the development programs and projects. In the developing nations, there are more immediate needs to be covered. With regards specifically to Mexico, there is not—climate change is not in the center of the discourse and the priorities of the Mexican government. Mexico has oil and gas and the current Mexican president—I mean, notwithstanding the analysis of other actors. What the Mexican government has had as a priority since the beginning of the administration has more to do with the development from the state, more centralization of the state, a greater role of the state in the sector of oil and gas. The climate change priority comes from the United States. Today, you know, the diplomatic efforts are going to be done to make Mexico to turn into the renewable sector, but at this point, it is not the priority of the Mexican government, neither the priority of a majority of the Mexican people, because in the developing world, climate change is important but it's more important sometimes in certain parts of Mexico, such as Guerrero, Michoacán, and Tamaulipas, and it's particularly the poorest regions of Mexico—Oaxaca or Chiapas—where there are several problems and, you know, immediate needs of people are not covered. And I'm talking about food. I'm talking about security very particularly. These pictures of children with arms in Guerrero and Michoacán tell us what the emergency situation is for a number of people, and the Mexican president has been able to create a discourse around these needs, around the needs for poor people, around the needs of those who can listen to that better, and he has a priority today—I mean, he sent a proposal to achieve an electric reform; well, the state is going to have more involvement and also a focus on electricity with the technologies that the Mexican state has been managed, which is not connected to solar or wind or the mindset that the United States has had in the past few years. So the priorities are very different and the studies are not directed there. The Department of Energy of the United States, through one of the laboratories of renewable energies, conducted a—I mean conducted a study and released the results of this report talking about the—according to the report—the negative effects in terms of emissions of carbon by Mexico and the increase in the cost of producing electricity. The Mexican government—the president alleged that that study was not based in reality. And you can see, then, what Mexico wants. And, you know, currently, Mexico has actively participated in the COP26 and it's been involved in the conversation, but definitely we don't know how much money or how this—(inaudible)—is going to be made. This is a very important question because I wasn't able to go in depth with this. This is probably going to be the main point of tensions between the two countries in the future—definitely for Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Andrés Manuel López Obrador was a very big critic of the recent energy reform of 2013, 2014, the energy reform that allowed private capital to get into the oil sector. He was a pretty big critic. There have been a number of events that link corrupt Mexican governments with the concessions in the oil sector, oil and gas sector, so this is probably going to be—continue to be discussed. And if the president has the capacity of passing the reform—that I see it very difficult because of the numbers that he needs—the situation is going to become more tense, because his vision is nationalistic and it's not—and nationalism—Mexican nationalism of today is not looking at climate change as its main priority. And you can see the supporters of Andrés Manuel López Obrador are really not discussing climate change. Mexican elites are discussing climate change and, of course, the opposition against Andrés Manuel López Obrador against the government of the Fourth Transformation, but they have an important majority—they don't have a majority, sorry, the opposition. The important majority is within the government of the Fourth Transformation, and their support for electric reform is important. I don't know how this is going to play out in the end, but in the United States and in Mexico, climate change is perceived in a very different way. That has to be understood very clearly because we don't see the media, we don't see how in the schools and how in Mexico overall the issue is well-ingrained into the society, because, of course, the society, the Mexican society, particularly the most vulnerable ones in the country, the very important number of poor people in the country has other priorities that have to do with food insecurity—have to do with food insecurity. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written question; it's from Yuri Mantilla, professor of law at Liberty University, and he writes, can you please analyze the influence of political ideologies in Mexico and the U.S. that are shaping both international relations between the two countries and perceptions of the Mexican and American people regarding the current political contexts under the Biden administration in the U.S. and the López Obrador leadership in Mexico? CORREA-CABRERA: That's an amazing question, but that is a very difficult question to answer very quickly. OK, let me try to do it. It's a very big challenge. This is a very challenging question. As I mentioned with regards to climate change, the ideologies in Mexico and the United States, what is right and what is left in the two countries is quite—it's, to some extent, different in the United States, the left and right. And today, because we have a president that ran on a left-wing platform and he was recognized as a left-wing president and also a very big critic of so-called neoliberal reforms and the neoliberal system that were represented by the previous administrations and that by the administrations that achieved democratization in Mexico. I'm talking about the National Action Party and all the parties that supported those reforms, the democratization in the country. And because of that, today, the ideology has transformed, to some extent; it's not about—I mean, support for the Washington consensus as it was in the previous decades versus—which was represented in the government—versus another project that direct—the relationship more with the people. Now that mindset, that discourse, sometimes propagandistic in certain ways, is in the government. So the government presents itself as a left-wing government. Nationalism and a conception of first the poor—the poor first, very big criticism, in discourse only, about neoliberalism, without, you know, a real perspective what neoliberalism is because of the support that the current Mexican government has provided to USMCA, which is one of the foundation parts of what is perceived as neoliberalism, which is mainly liberalism in—not in the perspective of the United States overall—free markets, the importance of free markets in the economy. It's a very challenging question because in the United States and Mexico there are important concepts that mean different things for people. Liberalism or neoliberalism for Mexicans mean support of markets and a support of the right, while in the United States, when we talk about liberalism, we think about progressive thinking; we think about equality but in a different way. In Mexico the center is equality in the economic regard, and the president today, the government, you know, is governing with the flag of equality, is governing with the flag of the left. And the so-called left is with the Mexican—or allegedly voted for the current Mexican president, but now some of them are debating themselves in different areas. So it's not as easy to place the right and the left as it is more in the United States; even in the United States there are many issues with regards to position yourself in right and left. We have the progressive part of the electorate in the United States versus a more moderate left, and, as you all know, the Republican Party or the conservative segment of the U.S. population that's more connected with Republican candidates, it's kind of like a very different conception in Mexico. The right wing in Mexico in many ways support, for example, the Democratic Party in the United States. What is conceived as the opposition to Andrés Manuel López Obrador even are very critical of Andrés Manuel López Obrador's relationship with feminism or the feminist movement. Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not supporting the feminist movement because Andrés Manuel López Obrador alleges the feminist movement has been supported by other countries and the opposition. So for the alleged left that is represented by the government, feminism is not a part of their agenda, while in the United States the LGBTQIA movement, the feminist movement, support for climate change, those important values are part of the progressive movement of the left. I mean, in Mexico, and I explain this is why this is very, very important and a very challenging question to answer—I mean, just very quickly—is that, for example, climate change is not in the agenda and climate change is in the—it has been taken by the opposition to the Mexican government. Many representatives of the opposition are criticizing the current Mexican government but not focusing on not going and continuing with the desire of constructing the Dos Bocas refinery and going with oil and gas and focusing on electricity as in the previous times of the PRI. So a number of the Mexican elite that is in opposition—I mean that's considered the opposition are supporting climate change. Why—not supporting climate change but are supporting, like, you know, the development of renewable energies and have as an objective climate change but mainly to criticize what the Mexican government is doing. So in that regard, we see a very big polarization between the ones that supported previous administrations versus this current government that connects with the left, while in the United States we see what is the ideological spectrum. A number of those who represent, as I said, the opposition are connected with the current administration objectives. For example, President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa presents very frequently his photographs with members of the Democratic Party, the current president, Joe Biden, and he's very critical of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, so there's a confusion that we can have based on our own ideologies that's not very easy to understand in very quick explanation. But I hope that I was, to some extent, clear in this regard. CASA: Next we're going to a raised hand. Ellen Chesler, who's senior fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center. Ellen? Q: I actually had put my question in the chat, I thought, but I'll ask it. Thank you so much for this interesting overview. I wanted to—I'm a historian by training and was going to ask you to historically frame some of your introductory remarks in a little bit more depth. First, of great interest to me, your comments about the importance of public health, specifically reproductive health policy. Have United States policies and support of Mexico in the last, you know, twenty-five years or so, in your view, been positive for the country, and what are the challenges that remain? And in a way linked to that, from your introductory comments, a question about labor: You mentioned, of course, that NAFTA, in your view, was successful, certainly from Mexico's standpoint, but has remaining challenges, largely relating to labor organization and the raising of wages in Mexico to equalize the situation between the two countries. Can you comment on what prospects there are for that happening today in Mexico? CORREA-CABRERA: Very interesting questions. With regards to reproductive health, this also has to do with the ideology. The left in Mexico, which is now represented, in a way, by the current Mexican government, the current Mexican government has adamantly—since Andrés Manuel López Obrador was head of the government of Mexico City there have been, you know, an advancement with regards to reproductive rights, reproductive health, and that is not under question of the current administration, which is very interesting because in the United States the—I mean, there's a different type of tension. And in other countries of the hemisphere too, we can see—you know, because we're Catholic countries we can see that area as very complex and a lot of opposition with regards to that. In Mexico, there needs to be an opposition because of the mentality, because of the culture, but there has been an advancement in the courts, and recently there was a decision in one state of Mexico that decriminalized—and it's very interesting how the Mexican government has been able to build a different discourse that has allowed the current government to advance in that direction. Decriminalization of abortion is a way that this has advanced. So I believe that possibly—I dare to say that possibly in the Americas, Mexico is one of the most progressive governments with regards to this subject, reproductive health and reproductive rights. It is very interesting—there must be a number of studies coming from this decision of the courts of one state of Mexico that's going to be defining the future of reproductive rights in the country. With regards to the second question about NAFTA, labor rights, there is an understanding in the United States that NAFTA has been good, particularly for Mexico. In the technocracy sector, particularly those that, you know, contributed to renegotiate NAFTA—I mean, the Mexican elites recognize the gains of Mexico in the framework of NAFTA, particularly if we focus on the manufacturing sector. The jobs that we're creating in maquiladoras, the jobs that were created due to NAFTA, were not enough to achieve or to allow Mexico to grow at rates that were acceptable. During the time of NAFTA, Mexico has grown at the same—almost at the same level of demographic rates of population rates. So overall, a number of jobs were lost in the beginning, the first years of NAFTA. Many of these people needed to move to the United States. So the effects of NAFTA in Mexico have been very extremely, extremely unequal. But what you will read probably in the reports that have been produced by Mexican academics, Mexican analysts and think tanks and in the think tanks of the United States is that NAFTA has been overall very good for Mexico. It has not been bad for Mexico. It has allowed the country to have access to a number of products but, at the same time, has affected some other sectors that could be considered of national security. And I'm thinking about the production of grain in the agricultural sector in particular. But with regards to labor rights—and this is why the question is very important, and I'm not sure that I answered it correctly. The United States has different priorities and has had different priorities that were manifested in the growth of dissatisfaction among an important segment of the U.S. population that has not been able to—I mean, become part of the development in the United States. That gave place to the Make America Great Again movement where the intention or the importance that a number of people in the United States, both in the left or in the right—the idea of a Green New Deal that it's right now in the form of the Build Back Better framework has this idea in mind, to generate jobs inside the United States, because globalization or very aggressive globalization after the end of the Cold War really put a number of people in the United States in a complicated situation because the jobs were performed outside the borders of the United States. So today, this is why it is important to understand what USMCA is about with regards to labor. There is an important pressure from the United States, in particular, to Mexico to increase or—the conditions of the workers in the manufacturing sector overall because there is an important focus on wages. But if wages are—increase more than what the president already increased, you know, into this framework and labor unions make more complicated the entrance of foreign capital and the foreign capital goes back to the United States, will Mexico lose its competitiveness? And the losses will be for Mexico. So there is a tension there and definitely this tension has not been solved. The wages in Mexico have been low but that has to do with the labor supply and with the conditions of labor markets overall. And if there is a force to create the labor unions, this is probably not going to be in the—I mean it's not going to benefit Mexican workers because the businesses are probably not going to generate those jobs and will probably relocate. That's a conversation that has been going on and we have not solved. And we have not seen an improvement overall in the conditions or the wages of workers, more than the one that Andrés Manuel López Obrador by decree—has been given to the workers by increasing in double, particularly at the border wages in the manufacturing sector. But in the framework of USMCA, we haven't yet seen the results and we have not yet seen also the pressure if Mexico has not because the unions have not been created and there are many tensions in that sector. There was an attempt to start with the first labor union in the maquiladora sector by—I mean today a person who is right now in Congress, Susana Prieto Terrazas—she ended up in jail in the state of Tamaulipas, so this is a very complicated subject that we haven't been able to solve. CASA: I'm afraid we have to close now. We're not able to get to all the questions, but we will give you the contacts for the professor and you can reach out to her directly, if you would like to continue the conversation. Guadalupe, thank you very much for being with us today, and to all of you for your great questions and comments. You can follow Guadalupe on Twitter @GCorreaCabrera. Our next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, November 17, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center of Global Energy Policy and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University, will lead a conversation on energy policy and efforts to combat climate change. In the meantime, I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on global issues. Thank you again for joining us today. We look forward to tuning in on November 17. (END)

Good Morning & Happy Monday! This week Sharifa is joined by Professor Patrick Kelly as they unpack the details of the recent Evergrande crisis - an enormous Chinese property development company with huge amounts of debt. They discuss its collapse, how it compares with the GFC and what the potential implications are for China and the broader economy. Patrick Kelly is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Finance at the University of Melbourne specialising in research of information efficiency, investments and asset pricing. He holds a Bachelor degree in Political Science from the University of California, and a Masters in Economics and a PhD in Finance from W.P.Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. Previously Dr. Kelly was an Associate Professor and the Chair of the Finance Department at the New Economic School in Moscow and a Research Fellow at the International Laboratory of Financial Economics, hosted by the International College of Economics Finance and the London School of Economics. Show your support for BoW Talks by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or following on Spotify. Alternatively, you can leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Guest Recommendation: Mental Immunity by Andy Norman

Today I talk about the US presidency, COVID, and the history of pandemics with presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky. Dr. Lindsay M. Chervinsky is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, and the Kundrun Open-Rank Fellow at the International Center for Jefferson Studies, and a Professorial Lecturer at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. She received her B.A. with honors in history and political science from George Washington University, her masters and Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, and her postdoctoral fellowship from Southern Methodist University. Previously Dr. Chervinsky worked as a historian at the White House Historical Association. Her writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Ms. Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Bulwark, Time Magazine, USA Today, CNN, and the Washington Post. Dr. Chervinsky is the author of the award-winning book, The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution.

Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of higher education policy and sociology at Temple University and founding director of the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice, and Clyde Wilson Pickett, vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh, discuss pandemic-related inequities in higher education.   FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at the Council on Foreign Relations. And we welcome you and are happy to have you with us today. Our meeting is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. So we're delighted to have Sara Goldrick-Rab and Clyde Wilson Pickett with us today to talk about pandemic-related inequities in higher education. We've shared their bios with you, so I'll just give a few highlights. Dr. Goldrick-Rab is professor of higher education policy and sociology at Temple University and founding director of the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice in Philadelphia. She's also the chief strategy office for emergency aid at Edquity, a student financial success and emergency aid company, and founder of Believe in Students, a nonprofit focused on distributing emergency aid. She's known for her innovative research on food and housing insecurity in higher education and for her work on making public higher education free. Dr. Pickett is vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh. In his role, he provides leadership for university-wide comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy. Previously Dr. Pickett served as chief diversity officer for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. And prior to that, he held positions with several other colleges and universities, including the Community College of Allegheny County, Ohio Northern University, Morehead State University, and the University of Kentucky. So thank you both for joining us today. You know, we really want to have a—dig into this conversation, the primary ways the pandemic has contributed to inequities in higher education that were already there, but we've seen the gap widen. So, Dr. Goldrick-Rab, it would be great if you could begin by talking about the financial challenges, including non-tuition related challenges, related expenses that you've seen pre-pandemic and now with the pandemic. And then we'll go to Dr. Pickett. GOLDRICK-RAB: Great. Yes. Well, thank you so much for having me. And it's great to be here virtually with you all today. It's a real honor. And I'm delighted to be here with Clyde and looking forward to this conversation. This topic of what students go through in order to pay for college is something that I spent about twenty years studying. And a lot of what we have learned over that time is that the challenges are a lot more complicated and a lot more substantial than simple numbers, like the net price of college or the amount of financial aid, would have you believe. So even prior to the pandemic, we saw that students were, for example, having trouble because what the college said it would cost to go there is inclusive of living expenses. And what a college estimates for living expenses is often off. So for example, right, if a student is living at home with their family, the assumption might be that the family is not charging rent. But a lot of students were, in fact, paying rent while living with their families. So one key thing that was challenging was information and, you know, just a good sense of what one had to budget for. A second really big challenge is that the financial aid system was really set up to support a fraction of college students, not to support the majority. And as result, there's a lot of paperwork required. There's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to be able to get and keep financial aid. And, frankly, there's only a limited amount of money. And so the financial aid, even before the pandemic, was leaving students way short, especially when it came to grants. And that's one of the main reasons that we saw the big increase in loans. The other thing is that the financial aid system is heavily bureaucratic. It moves very slowly. And so when a student has an unexpected expense or a shortfall—you know, a car breaks down—it is very hard to get that money quickly using standard financial aid. Another big challenge, it has to do with what happened to people's families, right? So the status of American families over the last twenty years, and the extent to which they can't actually make ends meet, the extent to which they can't survive an unexpected expense themselves, means that a lot of college students come from settings where there isn't anybody there to actually be able to help them in that way. They can provide love, and they can provide support, and they can talk to them and be supportive of, you know, what they're doing. But the idea that every student coming to college has two parents with good incomes who are able to step up and help, that's been an outdated assumption for a very long time. And of course, that also maps onto significant changes in the racial composition of higher education, into the gender composition, right, the class composition of higher education, and so on. Another big issue has to do with working. And working during college is actually the backbone of financial aid packages. Students are mostly assumed that they're going to need to work, and they do need to work. And 70 percent of students were working before the pandemic, and the vast majority of students were trying to find work but couldn't find it. So that was really hard in a labor market where the minimum wage didn't, you know, pay particularly well and where, let's be honest, employers really want flexibility and they're not particularly impressed with students' needs to attend class, for example, at given times of the day. So that, on top of state disinvestment for higher education, which has led a lot of institutions to shift the burden for paying for college onto students, was what thinks looked like before the pandemic. And then the pandemic struck. And we already had gaps in the system. We already had big financial holes for many, many students. And it did a lot of things. It made it harder for institutions that needed to offer students a lot more financial aid or a lot more emergency aid but didn't have the support available, that don't have big endowments. When the federal government stepped up, that was good. But somebody actually has to give out the money. And there wasn't a lot of money to provide for that additional staffing and infrastructure to actually get money to students quickly. That's a lot of work. So one of the results is that we find that an average time it takes to get a student emergency aid is about fourteen days. Which is way out of line when you consider that what happens to people in an emergency is they need money fast. Another thing that happened, of course, is that jobs for students have become a lot harder to find, although it's also been complicated by the fact that employers report they can't find people to work there. But the kinds of jobs that students are comfortable being in—meaning they feel safe, that work with their work schedules, and that pay a decent wage—are still really hard for many of them to find. Another challenge, of course, is that many of these students have family responsibilities. So more than one in four students in the United States has a child of their own. So the things that have happened to our workforce as schools closed and parents had to take care of kids happened to our students too. And to the extent that families became sick or, you know, there was a need for caretaking, students had to do that as well. So in all of the ways that affect regular people in American life—in terms of their financial instability, the volatility, the unexpected expenses—things were hard before and things are even harder now. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. Dr. Pickett, I'd like to go over to you now to talk about the challenges that you've seen, obviously with the diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and strategies that you could offer as we look ahead. PICKETT: Absolutely. Well, certainly I want to take the opportunity to extend my thanks for allowing me to be with you, and to be with our colleagues, and of course to share time with Sara. It's an honor and a privilege. Certainly, one of the things that we need to prioritize is that the current crisis has magnified inequities that have been with us for a long time. And as Sara notes, a number of these things have been present. And so as we think about the impact of this pandemic, they've exposed future, or I should say, current and more pronounced vulnerabilities that already existed. And they impact our populations beyond what we realize. So we put specific attention, as we should, on our students. But to be mindful that these vulnerabilities and specifically the impact of inequity impacts our colleagues. Certainly, that's true for our staff of different designations, particularly those who are economically fragile and who are on the frontlines, as well as our colleagues who are faculty. And to think about how we can't allow this crisis to be an excuse for how we prioritize equity and how we move a strategic agenda forward. So I wanted to be intentional about leading with that. It's an opportunity for us to affirm our commitment and our responsibility to addressing inequities broadly speaking across the institutions that make up higher education. In terms of prioritizing specific areas, I think that inequity has been most pronounced in terms of the areas of student support, more specifically thinking about holistic student support and how we're advancing and thinking collectively about the academic support as well as the broader considerations for how we support our students, the academic priorities of institutions and how we position them front and center. As we think about the responsibility to provide support for faculty who have to pivot to online exchange and instruction, how do we provide intentional support to meet the needs of different learners and to prioritize that beyond just a compliance lens, and to think about how accessibility and digital accessibility had to be front in consideration—a front and center consideration, I should say—for the work that we do. A part of this work, as we think about broad inequities, also is about the work in terms of thinking about the human capital of our institutions. I mentioned just briefly the disproportionate impact that we've—for frontline staff and individuals of different designation who are advancing work, but also to think about what it means in terms of being the caretaker of a loved one or significant other or child who has a health challenge or has been impacted by the pandemic. And more specifically to think about the childcare considerations that are placed on our colleagues and, as Sara pointed out, certainly our students as well. This broad conversation that I think is important for us to think about in terms of the broad DEI agenda and the long-term ramifications are for us to think about funding considerations as well as the academic priorities for the future. We've seen a number of conversations manifest around the country about learning loss and the impact long term in terms of access of higher education, and to mindful of what that means for vulnerable and populations that have been traditionally underrepresented, underserved, and locked out of higher education. So we need to be mindful of that specific impact. It is a necessity that we prioritize inclusion in terms of how we move this work forward. We know loud and clear that the pandemic has further illuminated issues of discrimination, bias, and xenophobia. We've seen that with the uptick in anti-Asian violence around the country, more pronounced incidents of growth in White supremacist groups around the country. And to think about how institutions can take a more proactive approach in creating inclusive spaces on campuses and online, as instruction has pivoted in different ways, and for us to prioritize that. Campuses must be intentional about thinking about the holistic needs our students, the basic needs our students, and to prioritize mental health support and technology, as all of those areas have been escalated for consideration. Certainly, to be mindful of balancing safety as a front and center consideration for how we prioritize inclusion is part of our work. And to think about how we prioritize funding allocation for different opportunities to impact populations has to be a consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda. So I offer those considerations as we begin our discussion and, of course, look forward to delving into more of them, as well as the questions that might come from our colleagues. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you very much. Let's go to all of you now for your questions. You can either raise your hand or you can type your question in the Q&A box and I'll read it. If you do so there, though, please state your institutional affiliation so that we know where you are, gives us the context for the conversation. So I'm going to first go to a good colleague, Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome. Over to you. Q: OK. Yeah. Good afternoon. I'm Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome. And I'm a professor of political science at Brooklyn College. One of the concerns that I have is the mental health effects on students, and actually all of us—(laughs)—but really on the students, especially students who do not—who are not traditional students. You know, and so they don't have as many resources available to them. So I was wondering what your insights are on this issue and what could be done institutionally and collectively to address this issue. PICKETT: I'll weigh in just quickly here, and Sara, of course, look forward to your comments as well. As a queued up at the beginning, I think this is a front and center consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda. Loud and clear we've heard directly from students that mental health is an area of priority. Before we were in the pandemic the request for additional support and for campuses all around the country was a front and center consideration, how we put particular attention and, more importantly, how we resourced mental health support was an area of rising consideration. And for colleagues who work directly in student affairs and student support, we know that this has always been there. But as we continue to navigate this pandemic, it continues to be an even greater area of consideration as we think about the impact, particularly on communities that have been most impacted, and particularly thinking about Black and brown communities, and other economically fragile communities, in terms of the need for additional mental health support, and in areas and certain situations where those communities don't necessarily always connect with mental health support. So that's another consideration. I think campuses that are most proactive, and higher education institutions that are most proactive are putting in specific resources to continue to build out support for mental health support. And for institutions that are less well-prepared for that, I think having alliances with broader institutions and to think about how we can leverage collective support is the answer for how we get at this. I want to be clear. I think we have a responsibility certainly to meet the needs of our students. But I don't want us to miss the opportunity in terms of what we're hearing loud and clear from our colleagues who are faculty and staff at institutions. Burnout is something in terms of climate surveys and assessments that our colleagues are communicating with us loud and clear. And so we have to be mindful that we have to take care of the individuals that take care of our students. So that's another part or a level of this that I think we have to keep at a front consideration. So absolutely I appreciate the question and note that we have to put additional resources and think about strategic collaboration across institution types to move this work forward, but to also think about what that means for our staff and faulty in support as well. GOLDRICK-RAB: I agree. I would say that we have to keep in mind that many institutions don't have any dollars to spare, and that clearly this is going to require federal support. And I think that even as we're sitting here right now there is discussion of a package. You know, the reconciliation is going on. And one piece of that package is $9 billion for student supports. And I think the question about the prioritization of those funds and where institutions plan to spend those funds, if they are to come—if they were to become reality, is a critical part of the conversation. You know, the mental health needs of students across the United States were greatest at the nation's community colleges before the pandemic. And those are the places that had the least level of supports in place. And it wasn't from lack of recognition of the problem; it was from lack of money. And so we have to acknowledge that we already had profound inequities, we already had mental health crises. The Healthy Minds Study has been documenting these things for years. And, yes, the current situation's making it worse. I do want to point out, though, that there are two dimensions to this current situation. One is the pandemic and the effects of the social isolation. The second is the effect of this virus. The Hope Center recently released, to my knowledge, the only study out there on the effect of the virus on college students. And our analyses across about a hundred thousand students across the nation show that it seems that having been infected with this virus is associated with increased anxiety, depression, and food insecurity. And I'm concerned, frankly, that a number of our institutions are not doing anything to allow students to disclose if they have been affected, so that we could direct more support to them. Now, I understand we can't require it—and, you know, there's a big distinction. But these students are at real risk of potentially long COVID effects, and so are staff and faculty. And I think that it is not only urgent that we adjust these challenges, but that we also do the triage that, unfortunately, we have to do because we have limited resources, and perhaps focus them on the populations that have been infected at the highest rates. Which, of course, include Black and brown and indigenous students, and also include student parents, and also include student athletes at very, very high rates. And I think that we'd better attend to it, or we're going to see a lot of ongoing problems. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Sara, I would like to get the link for that survey, and we can circulate it to the group. And any other resources that both of you would like us to share we will follow up with an email. So I'm going to go next to Lucy Dunderdale Cate. And please unmute yourself. Q: Hi. My name is Lucy Dunderdale Cate. I'm with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I wanted to get your thoughts on just how for leadership, you know, for chancellors, for presidents, how should they be communicating to students that are dealing with these issues? And particularly thinking about it—you know, students, but faculty and staff as well, and particularly being sensitive to that kind of toxic positivity that so often is easy for leaders to do. At the same time, wanting to still be encouraging and to be, you know, we can do this together feeling, but not being toxically positive. Would just love to get your thoughts on that. GOLDRICK-RAB: So my team is very taken with the research on empathy and care. And I think that a lot of folks often think that that is, you know, kind of glossing over, or maybe just too touchy-feely. But it's a very effective approach. And what it really means is starting by understanding your students as humans before you think about them as students. Just like we want our doctors to think about as humans before they think about us as patients. It changes the conversation. And what that means is that if you have important information to share with the students that you start with an open acknowledgement that this is a really tough time, right? That we don't gloss over that or skip past that. That we do give them many, many, many openings to be able to speak to somebody—whether that's a peer-to-peer, right, whether that's speak to a professional, whatever that is. And that we continue to not just—it's important, frankly, that we don't just cheerlead and push people, I think as you might be alluding to, towards, you know, just keep going, just stay in, everything is fine, but openly acknowledge that everybody right now is really slogging through it and that coping is incredibly difficult. And I think that the one other piece is that, in my view, this starts with leadership. This really is not effective and cannot happen if the president doesn't embrace it, because it really trickles down from there, frankly. And it has to be in multiple places. So this should be reflected in a statement that's on every syllabus, right? It should show up on the management system, it should show up in correspondence. You know, anything that the institution can do to remind students that they get it. Cutting red tape right now, right? Removing more bureaucracy, relieving and getting out of any kinds of requirements that are not necessary—all of those things are human-centered things. PICKETT: I appreciate everything that Sara offered. And I double down on that in terms of thinking about the senior administrative approach to this. Certainly, there exists consultative means to engage students, and I think we utilize those. Having had the opportunity to work on different kinds of campuses, I do think it's mindful for us to be attentive of the populations that don't easily have ready access to senior administration. Having had the opportunity to serve at a community college, quite often we know that there is a more guided path to get directly to student input and feedback. But I think it's critical to use the necessary means to get directly to students. I think the intentionality that Sara points out in terms of having empathetic messages communicated in different mediums is critical. Whether we're using social media, whether we're doing that on our syllabi, whether we're doing that specifically as it relates to the messages that we put out to the campus community, I think there has to be consistency in the chorus that speaks to the empathy of the now and how we're working to navigate this together. The toxic positivity that you referenced I think is prevalent at a number of institutions. And for us to be mindful of what that means—one of the ways that we were able to execute that here at the University of Pittsburgh was a townhall series that we put in place for all stakeholders called This is Not Normal, to just identify collectively as a community that what we're experiencing is absolutely abnormal, and to talk about what that experience was, and to think about collectively how we could move as a community to respond to the needs and to have ongoing triage and collective concern and outreach by all constituents. And I think to do that, and to be attentive to those populations that are most removed from senior administration, is something that we have to do. So utilizing our colleagues at all levels, specifically looking at peer mentoring models that offer opportunity to have communication with students, and to think about starting those messages during the orientation process is a front and center consideration to move that agenda forward. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Pearl Robinson. Q: So, Pearl Robinson. I do African politics, international relations, African studies at Tufts University. This being the Council on Foreign Relations, I want to bring up the issue of study abroad. And certainly, last year Tufts both undergraduate and graduate study abroad international relations is very important. The university decided it had to bring home students from all of our study abroad programs except Oxford, which was deemed safe. And we were told how everybody was living with families. And of course, at the end of—they had to eventually bring those people home again. So now we're talking about our study abroad programs. Will we have one in Ghana? I had counseled two students who are going to be studying Africa at either at SOAS or LSE. Maybe we have to shut down Africa because it's too dangerous. I actually want to know, are there are universities that are thinking about the implications of creating—or, not having study abroad opportunities for students in non-European places, and ways in which you might be able to do things? Like, I participated in a couple of very exciting webinars with African universities where there's some kind of interaction. So I just want to know, has anybody been thinking about that? And does the Council maybe have that on its agenda? Have you been doing it secretly and I didn't know about it? FASKIANOS: We can look at it for a future topic, Pearl. Do either of you want to? GOLDRICK-RAB: I don't have any expertise in this space, except to say that I spoke to folks at AIEA yesterday and, you know, they're very concerned about students' health and wellbeing. PICKETT: And the same on my end. I wouldn't have anything in terms of expertise to offer but would say from an administrative standpoint it's intentional for us to be mindful of the different opportunities that we engage with, and to use an equity lens with regard to how we're monitoring those experiences. I know loud and clear as we think about race and ethnicity being a front and consideration as part of this pandemic and our response to be mindful of the ramifications and the impact on different communities. So leadership should put that front and center in consideration, but in terms of specific things that I've seen directly, nothing that I could offer. But I do—should I find information I'll definitely pass it along to Irina. FASKIANOS: And just to follow on a bit, granted from a different angle, what about the pandemic-related inequities facing international studies? What is the—you know, on your campus, the international studies, and have they been able to come this year? And maybe that would be an opportunity to create some international experiences on campus. PICKETT: Absolutely. I think different institutions obviously are in different places with regard to that. We've had a number of students who have been able to return to campus. But to mindful that there has been a significant impact, particularly as they think about housing and what the experience is like in the community. And as we think about, particularly depending on where individuals come from, how they self-identify, and the rising tide of what I would classify as racism and xenophobia potentially impacting those students is a consideration that we have to put front and center. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would say that, you know, again, we had big problems before the pandemic with folks not being able to really afford to be here the way they had hoped to be able to really afford to be here. We had students—international students at food pantries well before the pandemic. You know, certainly the number who can't be here at all right now is one issue, but I also want to note that one good thing is that the federal government's Higher Education Relief Funds, the HEERF III dollars in particular, which came out this year, which provided emergency aid to students, does not require students to be United States citizens in order to get those funds. It doesn't even require them to fill out a FAFSA either. So institutions, all of them that receive Title IV, have a substantial amount of emergency aid dollars right now which they could choose to leverage to support international students. Furthermore, their institutional allocations of those same dollars can also be used for those purposes. And so in this case, again, everyone is a human. And we do not have to choose to treat people differently based on that status as an international student. I don't know how widespread that understanding is. It's very clear, frankly, in the federal FAQs. But that's stuff the lawyers read. And I'm concerned that people who advocate for these students might not be aware of this. Or maybe they're not being heard in terms of where the dollars are going to be put. PICKETT: I'd double down on what Sara offers in terms of us thinking about the institutional ethos for support for those students and that student population. How we prioritize that agenda and how we amplify the voices of advocates, particularly for our international students, is a front and center consideration that was present, again, before—you're noticing a trend here—was present before the pandemic. But nonetheless, one that we have to continue to prioritize as a consideration. And as those dollars are available, institutions being willing to make the appropriate allocations and supplement them where necessary to continue to support different students populations, including our international students. FASKIANOS: Thank you. While we wait for a few more questions to queue up, how about the digital inequity? I know, Sara, you said before we got started that you were teaching all online. So the digital inequity has been a big concern, and we've really seen that, as well as, you know, people not wanting to turn on their cameras because, you know, they are sharing spaces, and might not want to show their homes, and all of that. So can you talk a little bit about how—what you're thinking on that. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I mean, it's a huge issue. So, I mean, the first thing is, again, I keep saying before the pandemic. But, you know, I spent twelve years living in Wisconsin. We had tons of college students all over the state who did not have broadband access, OK? So, you know, and it was a time when, frankly, the state was cutting—well, it's continued to cut state support—but it was cutting back the ability of in-person campuses to even be there and telling people to go online. And there really wasn't real ability to do that. So this, again, is a longstanding problem. We have the same challenge here in Pennsylvania, especially in rural communities. I am teaching online right now. And I want to say that, you know, part of the reason is because there's a whole population of students that want online instruction. These are people who would have to commute quite a long ways to get to school. These are people who have children and are juggling that. These are people who have health challenges and/or other disabilities, right? So there is an appetite for online instruction. One of the biggest challenges, of course, is not only do they have the technology for online instruction, but also who has access to teachers who are comfortable, and well-trained, and good at online instruction? And unfortunately, because we have not made those investments—and, frankly, I think we should view those as infrastructure investments—we did not resource the people who need to do the teaching so they can be prepared. Then we have some of the most vulnerable students getting taught by teachers with the least time and ability to able to kind of pivot like this. We do also have a workforce, frankly, of a lot of folks in wealthier parts of higher education where professors don't think of themselves as teachers. They think of themselves as researchers, and so on. And so getting them to invest the time to learn to teach online is also a challenge. That said, it can be done well. And, frankly, a student doesn't need to turn on their camera to be engaged in a course. And to me, the fact that we keep having that conversation—which is, you know, far from just your question, everybody's asking that question—tells me that we have people who are not taught about how to do engagement with students who can't turn on their cameras. I open up multiple channels for students to be able to interact with me while I'm teaching. They message, OK? They can hit on Slack. I run multiple things. But it requires that I know how to do that and that I am suited to that task. So the last part is this: I mean, here in Philadelphia it's hard to believe, you know, that people would really have trouble getting on the internet. But they really do because they can't afford their internet bills. And so I have multiple students right now who are telling me that they're accessing everything using their phone, not on their laptops. Their phone is their laptop essentially. And they don't have wireless, so they have very spotty service. So they didn't even know that our university offers hotspots now. And so one big part is informational, connecting them to that. PICKETT: I think it's critical, appended to the comments that Sara makes, to be attentive of different populations. Certainly, it's pronounced—it was pronounced at the beginning of the pandemic that there were a number of issues with access to broadband internet in different communities. Obviously having spent time in the state of Minnesota and thinking about the native and indigenous population and the opportunities where there was limited broadband access there, as well as hardware limitations, those are considerations that I think a number of communities have pronounced as areas of consideration. And that's true, I think, for different areas. Certainly, that's true in western Pennsylvania. And as Sara points out, we have a number of students of different backgrounds and of varying means economically that choose to access their courses via cellphone. So to think about the different kinds of instruction and how we're supporting our colleagues to observe equitable practices in a virtual environment, and to think about how we have to systematize that and appropriately educate our colleagues deliver that kind of instruction is a consideration. I think the other areas of consideration, particularly as we're thinking about digital accessibility or the conversations about general academic support in different models of delivery—so whether we're thinking about asynchronous delivery of instruction or the different modalities of learning, to be mindful that different student populations respond to different ways and different things. And to put that as part of our consideration for the academic agenda is a consideration that I think we need to be mindful of. FASKIANOS: And just, if we could hearken back to your experience at the Community College of Allegheny, Clyde, just to talk about the disparities at community college. I know, Sara, you touched upon it, about the mental health crisis that existed before the pandemic and is, you know, they couldn't address it because of lack of resources. But it would be interesting to hear your perspective, Clyde, from what you've experienced. PICKETT: Absolutely. Having had the opportunity to work directly at the Community College of Allegheny County, as well as the State System of Higher Education in Minnesota, and to serve thirty-seven community and technical colleges, it's critical for us to put an equity lens in terms of thinking about the access to hardware and to digital resources for all of our student populations. We know that those inequities existed before that. But in a more pronounced way when we pivoted and made the jump to remote instruction, for a number of institutions and individuals there was the need to provide access to hardware as well as to digital networks for students. And those gaps existed before and exist now. I think as we think about availability of resources, that is an area of consideration. The other thing as we think about this is modality of learning, and how different populations respond to different kinds of learning. And so that's another consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda and how we work proactively to meet the needs of different learners to make available appropriate support, whether it's online models for tutoring or expanded academic support for advisors—a consideration particularly at our community and technical colleges that I think is a necessity. The other consideration, and Sara talked about this in terms of the equity lens and experience, to equip our educators with utilizing appropriate training and education to not bias how they engage with learners depending on how they interface with the use of technology. To shut one's camera off should not at all impact how an individual engages with what's expected of them in the classroom and certain situations. So to be mindful and to communicate equitable approaches to that exchange I think is a consideration. FASKIANOS: Are there any places that you would suggest for people who would want to sort of dig in on how to better do that? I think, Sara, you mentioned Digital Pedagogy Lab as a resource. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would really highly recommend Digital Pedagogy Lab. That's my absolute favorite resource out there. And they do institutes, and they do trainings, and so on. And I really do recommend taking a look. FASKIANOS: Great. In the work that you've been doing, Sara, you know, we've seen a lot of reports about the impact of the pandemic on women, and how many women have left the workforce because the childcare issues, and whatnot. So have you done any studies on women leaving college? And you said—I believe you said one in four have a child. So how does that fall out? GOLDRICK-RAB: Well, so I will tell you, the interesting thing about higher ed is that even though women have a substantial number of challenges, they are less likely than men to drop out. And that's been true for a long time. There are many books written about why men are less likely to attend college, why they're more likely to drop out of college, and so on and so forth. Even though, frankly, you know, a woman—like, the disproportionate number, for example, of people with children in higher education are single moms. There are single dads, for the record. There are married dads. All of the different things are there as well. I would not say that we have done studies, therefore, of them dropping out during this time. But we have done studies of their basic needs and their basic need security during this time. And what I can tell you is that students with children are more likely to not have their basic needs met, to have struggles with food, and housing, and so on and so forth. We don't see really pronounced gender differences, except that I would say that gender nonconforming students, actually, are much more likely to face these challenges and to find that they're really struggling financially. Some of the reason for that, we suspect, has to do with the way that financial aid is allocated. Those students are less likely to be able to access parental resources that make it look like the family has money, even though the student is not getting any of that support. But parenting while in college is already really difficult. And it's especially hard in the pandemic. Students report not being able to concentrate, right? They report juggling all kinds of additional challenges. And I will say, the schools reopening right now is far from an easy thing. So you know, in many districts across the country, including here in Philadelphia, the schools are intermittently open. We have had, you know, a given class where there's a COVID infection, and then suddenly the class is shut down. The school's open, but the student can't go because their class is closed for the week—they're quarantining. This is wreaking havoc for students. I have more students than ever who are saying they don't know what one week is going to be like to the next. And, frankly, the same thing is true for us parents who are staff and faculty. I am ready at the drop of a hat right now to run down and pick my kids up, because we—you know, we had—we've had COVID infections, we had a flood thanks to a hurricane and a tornado. I mean, there's—you know, so—(laughs)—it is—it is a remarkable time to try to keep anything education going right now. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I want to just ask people, we're coming to the end of our time. So if you have other questions—I have a whole list of questions. So I can—I can keep going on. (Laughs.) But I don't want to filibuster here, so please raise your hands. Clyde, can you talk a little bit more about as you think about DEI leadership, how DEI leaders can encourage their institutions to think more strategically about how they take care of Black and brown population, and deal with these pandemic-related inequities? PICKETT: Absolutely. I think part of this is for us to think intentionally about how we monitor, check in, and think about the engagement of those populations on our campuses. Loud and clear as we manage and examine enrollment trends at the institutions, I think we need to be mindful of what the presence of our population is for Black and brown communities as part of our institutions, and to be attentive of that. We're reminded that in the midst of this pandemic was the continued push for racial equity and racial equity in this country. And so a number of institutions, at the same time dealing with the challenge associated with the pandemic, also made renewed commitments to attract and retain more diverse populations across the academy. We saw a number of institutions that made commitments to attract more faculty of color, to be attentive of what it means to support scholars of color, particularly those who are Black and brown. And so thinking about what that means in terms of DEI strategy work is to be mindful of the different populations, and to assess those experiences as they have come to our institution. So we're having a lot of conversations across the academy to think about not only the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic of racism and how it continues to impact our colleagues across the institution, more specifically our students. And so as we think about this DEI strategy, to be mindful of how we examine the experiences of our students and to think about the examination of sense of belonging as they come to our institutions, as well as how they're assessing the experiences for holistic support. So giving the opportunity for our colleagues who are DEI strategists to have access to the data in terms of thinking about those student experiences, and how we can influence and shape policy as a consideration for the work that we do. One of the things that I will point to as a consideration, that we've had some success in a previous role from a systems standpoint, was to use an equity-based lens approach to reviewing all of our policies, when I was at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. And that resource and tool is available online. And we did that to provide real time opportunity for us to think about the policy implications for different populations. And there were a number of things that we unearthed as part of that experience, whether it was a disproportionate impact on Black and brown communities with our financial (holes ?), or to think about other considerations, those are kinds of—the kinds of tools that we can utilize to further move an agenda forward. So I would say that those are things that we have to use as a resource to move our agenda forward. FASKIANOS: Have you seen there to be a decline in enrollment as well? PICKETT: Obviously it depends on the institution type. So we know that community and technical colleges have suffered enrollment challenges as part of the pandemic. The University of Pittsburgh, we're at record enrollment for Black and brown communities here at the university. So I think the institution type, the resources associated with the institution, also obviously impact how and the ways institutions are able to move agenda. So to be mindful of that is a consideration that I think we have to examine. As we think about federal support for higher education—and I know Sara referenced this earlier—that's a consideration. As we think about the institutions who are the haves versus those been most fragile. It requires us to think about how we make specific allocation federally to influence and support those institutions. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So if you were advising the Biden administration, the secretary of education, what would be the top two things that you would suggest the Biden administration to do in hiring? GOLDRICK-RAB: I am advising the Biden administration secretary of education. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. GOLDRICK-RAB: So do you want to know what we're advising them? (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: I do, actually. (Laughs.) GOLDRICK-RAB: I will say, for anybody who's interested, actually I testified before Congress yesterday in front of the U.S. House of Representatives around some of the work that they need to be doing. And I really urge folks in higher ed to take a look because the conversation was about hunger and food insecurity, and the committee was the Committee on Rules. And I worry a lot that our higher ed folks are not watching that committee or the committees outside of the education committees. But I believe that Jim McGovern is actually going to play a leading role in what's going to happen for our students and their basic needs in that space. So it's at rules.house.gov. And you can see the hearing from yesterday. I think one of the most exciting things that is about to happen is that a man named James Kvaal is finally going to take his seat and get to do his job as undersecretary of education. You know, our secretary of education is a K-12 expert. And I've been really glad to see him bring on some great folks like Eloy Oakley Ortiz from the California Community Colleges as an advisor. But James Kvaal is a higher ed expert. And the undersecretary of education's role is absolutely critical. And one of the things that he is intending to do, and that we need him to do, is to put somebody in charge of making sure that we change rules and regulations and administrative minutia to help secure students' basic needs now. So this is the time to make sure that our students get access to SNAP, right? To make sure that we connect them to the child tax credit. There are so many things that are available to students beyond standard financial aid. And right now, the Department of Ed doesn't tell them about any of those things. So that is absolutely imperative. And I also will say that with regard to the reconciliation bill and what the House is doing right now in terms of markup, free community college is in there and it needs to be. And it needs to happen. And it needs to pass. And the time is now. And I think that we will never regret that move. I believe that just as we expanded access to K-12 education starting with elementary school and then moving through high school, we should absolutely go for free community college. It will not be the last thing that we do, but I think it's essential. You know, I don't know how much folks remember the last recession, but I was doing a lot of research during that time. And I'll tell you that all the growth in the enrollment, all the returning growth to higher ed came, right, from students going to community colleges, and came from largely part-time folks. And so we're going to see people returning because they need higher education. And we need to make sure that those institutions are able to help them succeed. A lot of people think going to community college is not the best move. You know, they don't have the best outcomes. And I have one really clear answer for you: You get what you pay for. If you give them the resources and you give the students the resources so that they go to institutions and they actually can focus on learning and not worrying about if they have to eat, they will graduate and they will do well. PICKETT: I, of course, double down on that support for thinking about how we make community college accessible to all. Obviously, a long-standing advocate for community and technical colleges. It's something that is a priority for me. And we know statistically the largest populations of Black and brown students who ultimately complete a four-year degree start at community and technical colleges. So that has to be a priority. And I think in terms of funding and making that a priority, it is a consideration absolutely that we have to keep front and center. The other thing that I would offer is for us to think continually about how we support intentional holistic support. Whether it's mental health support, how we address housing insecurity and food insecurity for consideration for our college students has to be a consideration as well, and to be mindful of what that means long-term. It's an investment in our future of the country. And so I think we have to be mindful that while there is an investment now, long-term it will yield considerable benefits for us as a nation, and for us to not only provide access, but holistic support during that process ultimately will put us in a much better place and lead us down a greater path holistically in terms of where we want to be in the future for this country. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And I'm going to go now to Elsa Dias, who has her hand raised. Q: Yes. I am. Thank you. I am a—I am faculty at a community college in Colorado—at Pikes Peak Community College. And I'm—so to support some of what is being said currently here. But I don't think that students are getting what they're paying for at community colleges. I think that they're getting much more than what they are getting at community colleges. So that statement is sort of—I don't know that I appreciate the statement, because I think that students at community colleges we are working with consistently cut budgets, more so than four schools. And we have much more difficulty in raising tuition. It's not the same thing as in—as in four-year schools. We deal with populations that are in higher need than four-year schools. And we have to meet very different criteria than four-year schools. Our standards in terms of meeting what the students need and what—we are heavily legislated upon, right? So there is these state legislations that sort of affect us very differently than they do four-year schools. So I do believe that students are getting much more than what they are given, and what they get at community colleges. And some of the things that we see today, during this pandemic at community colleges, are I think the stigma to go to community colleges is certainly—continues to be around. And we continue to not participate in many of the voices that we should be included in at the table. But I also think that it's important to realize that our administrators are faced with much higher challenges than administrators at four-year schools, and so in the faculty. And the lack of investment in faculty at four-year schools does not even come close to the lack of investments that we suffer at community colleges. We have to do a lot more with a lot less. Thank you. GOLDRICK-RAB: So if I may respond, I think maybe, Elsa, I wasn't entirely heard for what I was saying. What I was saying was that you are doing a tremendous amount with very little. And the point is when you say what you get what you pay for, right, is if we want to have 100 percent graduation rates at community colleges, the way we do at Harvard, then we should be resourcing the schools, including the faculty, the student support services, et cetera. What we do in higher education is that we give the schools that educate the most vulnerable the least amount of money on a per-student basis. So for example, if you take a look—I served on the national taskforce around the adequate funding for the nation's community colleges. That was all about showing that if you were going to fund community college adequately to actually address the needs of students, and to do so where they would much—have much higher rates of graduation and success in the completion of their programs, you would be spending approximately four to five to six times what you're currently spending. I outline all of this in a very extensive—I have about a fifty-page report called “The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Community Colleges,” which came out in 2010, which actually delineates the underspending on community college faculty, on community college staff, and so on and so forth. I think, given the severe economic disparities between these institutions, their students, and the four-year colleges, it's a miracle that in many ways we get anything, right? That students are able to graduate, because we spend so very, very little. So as a quick last example, in the state of New Jersey taxpayer support goes to Princeton University at fifty times the rate of taxpayer support going to New Jersey Community Colleges. Fifty times. So we should expect, right, that if we increased the support to students at those community colleges there is a strong relationship between the inputs of the finances and the outputs that they produce. I think it's worthy of a greater investment. So I think we're actually agreeing. FASKIANOS: Clyde, anything you would like to add? PICKETT: Well, just that loud and clear I hear the comments and what Elsa brings in. I appreciate the clarity from Sara there. Having had the opportunity to be an administrator at a community college and a developmental studies adjunct faculty member at a community college, I know loud and clear that we're working proactively to meet the needs of our learners in a way that supports them where they are. And we do transformational work. To be clear, that that transformational work should be embraced, welcomed, and supported by four-year institutions. So those of us who are working and serving on the four-year institution side of the house to actually normalize and champion access to community and technical colleges, and to do so in such a way that embraces and makes smooth pipelines and opportunities for our learners who transfer—who complete their education, and to make sure there are appropriate matriculation agreements for programs of study for our students who ultimately complete their four-year education at institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, but start at community and technical colleges. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We are almost out of time, so I wanted to give you each a few minutes to just touch upon anything we didn't touch upon or cover or leave us with some final thoughts. So, Sara, why don't we start with you and then we'll go to Clyde. GOLDRICK-RAB: Clyde was about to go. Please go, Clyde. FASKIANOS: Clyde was about to go. All right, Clyde. PICKETT: No, I appreciate the opportunity. Once again, thank you for allowing me to spend time with you, allowing me to be with you in community. And this is just an opportunity for us to reaffirm where we are in terms of our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And more specifically, to acknowledge that the areas of vulnerability that we've identified, the inequity, have been longstanding with regard to the academy. It's an opportunity for us to flip the mirror and have a very long pause, intentional look at how we can make remedy, how we can make change, and how we can affirm and, for some of us, reaffirm our commitment and responsibility to address the inequity that has been present, but has been further exacerbated as part of this pandemic. So now is the time for us to close equity gaps. Now is the time for us to take action. And I look forward to standing with colleagues all around the country to do so. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would just say that, you know, the challenges are really big right now, but there's also a lot of room for structural change. And I think we need to speak up for it and advocate for it, and not just lament it, right? You know, each of us in this country has a representative, or a couple of them, or a bunch of them, right? And they need to hear about what's happening to higher education. It's really, really important. One aspect of the hearing yesterday that was absolutely fascinating occurred when there was an exchange between Representative Cole, who came from Oklahoma, and the panel. And what he said was—he sat back in his chair. And he said: I've got to tell you, I've learned something today. I did not know that college students could go hungry. I did not know that this was happening. He said, we have to do something about this. Folks, tell them about what's going on, because they do not know—many of them do not know. I'm not saying that they'll all act, but many, many of our public leaders are very, very distanced from the realities that we're facing, whether we're staff, whether we're administrators, whether we're faculty. They are not getting it. And I think that it is so important that we communicate as much as we can because they have some big work to do right now, and some big opportunities to create change. FASKIANOS: Thank you, both. This was a really great conversation. We appreciate your insights in sharing your experience with us. And we will put together all the resources that were mentioned here and send them out to all of you to read and digest. You can follow both of our speakers on Twitter, @saragoldrickrab and @cwpick. So please go there. Again, I want to thank Dr. Goldrick-Rab and Dr. Pickett for being with us today. Next week we have a dedicated webinar series for students. And so our first one will be next week of the semester on September 15, from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. Eastern time, and it's a great opportunity for students to actually ask their questions. This series is devoted to administrators and professors, but that one is for the students. And we hope you will share with your students and with your colleagues too on campus. So our next Education Webinar for the higher ed community will be on Thursday, October 21, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time with Brian Mateo to talk about civic engagement in higher education. So I hope you'll join us next week and in October of the next one. So with that I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org and ForeignAffairs.com for more information and resources on international affairs. And again, thank you both. We really appreciate it. (END)

Cheryl L. Richards, Ph.D. began her term as president of Johnson & Wales University's Charlotte Campus, on June 15, 2020, in the grip of COVID. Previously Dr. Richards served as the founding chief executive officer and regional dean of Northeastern University's Charlotte Campus. As someone with a distinguished career in higher education, she talks with us about the impact of COVID on Charlotte campuses, and what's ahead for the University.

France and its policy towards the Western Balkans Guest: Srđan Cvijić [@srdjancvijic], Senior Policy Analyst BiographyDr. Srdjan Cvijic is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels. Previously Dr. Cvijic was a senior diplomat posted in the missions of the Republic of Serbia in Belgium and the Netherlands. He has been focused on rights, values, and international law in EU external policies and EU enlargement negotiations.His latest report: “It's the EU, Not Western Balkan Enlargement…French public opinion on the EU membership of the Western Balkans”https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/its-the-eu-not-western-balkan-enlargement

This week on #TheBraveMarketer Podcast, Dr. Fou, Cybersecurity and Ad Fraud Investigator, discusses his research on ad fraud reporting, brand safety threats and ways marketers can mitigate their risk. Dr. Fou helps his clients increase the productivity of their ads by detecting and mitigating ad fraud and waste. He's also a digital marketer of 25 years and regularly contributes to Forbes. Previously Dr. Fou was the Chief Digital Officer of Omnicom's Healthcare Consultancy Group, a $100 million group of 8 agencies serving pharma, medical devices, and healthcare clients. In this episode of The Brave Marketer Podcast, we discuss: Brand safety threats when advertising Uber's $6m ad fraud settlement How marketers can mitigate their ad fraud exposure   About this show: Brave is at the forefront of a new online privacy frontier and has unique insight into the future of marketing and advertising in a cookieless world. If you're an agency, brand marketer or entrepreneur challenged by the changes in ethical advertising, consumer privacy and buyer expectations, this podcast will provide a backstage view of how influential marketers at top brands and agencies are responding to what's next. This week's Brave Pick of the Week is Gala Games. Check out their website here. Music by: Ari Dvorin Hosted by: Donny Dvorin

Owner/Director/Doctor of Chiropractic at TOPCHIRO Experienced Owner with a demonstrated history of working in the health wellness and fitness industry. Skilled in Healthcare, Nutrition, Chronic Pain, Fitness, and Neck Pain. Strong healthcare services professional graduated from Palmer College of Chiropractic. A proper philosopher and Liberal Arts enthusiast, who helps aspiring scholars properly pursue the life of an autodidactic. In addition to owning and operating several healthcare practices in the Netherlands, he mentors new graduates on the first three of the seven classical Liberal Arts. Previously Dr. Corcoran studied Nuclear Power while serving in the United States military. Later he earned his University Bachelor's degree in Philosophy with a minor in Biology. Currently Dr. Corcoran proudly serves on two international boards of directors, and as advisor to one national board of directors in Singapore. Additionally he donates his time and finances regularly to principled colleges and research. His two favorite personal hobbies apart from always learning are tennis and rock-climbing. Bio obtained from LinkedIn Consider supporting this endeavour here: https://www.patreon.com/chiroinspired  

We face an existential threat of permanent damage to critical physical components in our national infrastructure as a result of their poor resilience against cybersecurity attack. A Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) commonly provides the control system for such components, e.g., bulk power generators. Our proof-of-concept implementation dramatically mitigates threats to such cyber-physical systems (CPS) by specifically leveraging what NIST 800-160 calls "highly assured, kernel-based operating systems in Programmable Logic Controllers".We dramatically reduce the attack surface visible to potential attackers to be ~1% of the total compared to competing approaches. Our demonstration refactors the common CPS architectural approach to data and cooperating processes into hierarchically ordered security domains using the widely available OpenPLC project code base. The GEMSOS security kernel verifiably enforces traditional integrity mandatory access control (MAC) policy on all cross-domain flows. GEMSOS is designed for wide-spread delivery as a Reusable Trusted Device, providing the reference monitor for secure single-board, multi-board, and System-on-a-Chip systems.Only a processing component in the highest integrity domain can directly send/receive control signals, enforcing "safe region" operating constraints to prevent physical damage. This very small attack surface protects the critical physical components, making the overall CPS resilient to skilled adversaries' attacks, even though much larger lower integrity software running in other domains on the same Trusted Device hardware and network infrastructure may be thoroughly compromised. We make available our restructured OpenPLC source to encourage control system manufacturers to deliver verifiable PLC products to, as NIST puts it, "achieve a high degree of system integrity and availability" for control systems. UC Davis is using our demonstration on GEMSOS in their Computer Security Lab, today. About the speaker: Roger R. Schell is internationally recognized for originating several key modern security design and evaluation techniques, and was awarded patents in cryptography, authentication and trusted workstation. His experience includes 20 years in US federal program management (computers), 30 years as a computer industry security product vendor, and 5 years as a graduate cybersecurity engineering faculty member.He is President and a founder of Aesec Corporation, a start-up providing a commercial verifiably secure operating system. Previously Dr. Schell was co-founder and vice president for Gemini Computers, Inc., now an Aesec subsidiary. At Gemini he directed development of their highly secure (what NSA called "Class A1") commercial product, the Gemini Multiprocessing Secure Operating System (GEMSOS). He was also the founding Deputy Director of NSA's National Computer Security Center. He has been referred to as the "father" of the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (the "Orange Book"). Dr. Schell is a retired USAF Colonel. He received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the MIT, an M.S.E.E. from Washington State, and a B.S.E.E. from Montana State. The NIST and NSA have recognized Dr. Schell with the National Computer System Security Award. In 2012 he was inducted into the inaugural class of the National Cyber Security Hall of Fame.

Dr. Annie Weisman is the Director of Wellness & Integrative Medicine with the UNLV School of Medicine. She is working to develop wellness and integrative medicine curriculum and workshops for the medical students, faculty and residents. Previously Dr. Weisman worked in the field for thirteen years as a massage therapist in HIV/AIDS clinics and hospices. She was awarded the Jefferson Award for Public Service for this work in 2007 and has presented her research numerous times at the Nevada Public Health Association and American Public Health Association conventions and was chosen to attend the Clinton Global Initiative University in Miami, FL. Dr. Weisman spent 13 years caring for people living with HIV/AIDS, as well as volunteering and working for hospice patients. During this time, she developed continuing education classes for nurses and other health care providers to help teach some techniques that are soothing for patients and non-pharmacological. Her role now with the medical school will be to introduce these and many other techniques to the medical students, faculty and residents to help them manage their own stress as well as to help provide a broader understanding of integrative treatments for their patients. Dr. Weisman earned her B.A., M.P.H. and Ph.D. degrees from UNLV (Human Touch: Perceptions of Self-Efficacy From a Non-Pharmacology Treatment for Individuals Living With HIV/AIDS). Additionally, she studied at the University of Cape Town with New York University in a 4- week immersion course where she worked with the families and patients in a community setting. She specializes in integrating massage therapy and other integrative practices into the care and treatment of patients. Dr. Weisman has taught therapists about her integrative techniques and works to teach patients, care providers and families techniques that they can use at home. Support this podcast

Dr. Annie Weisman is the Director of Wellness & Integrative Medicine with the UNLV School of Medicine. She is working to develop wellness and integrative medicine curriculum and workshops for the medical students, faculty and residents.  Previously Dr. Weisman worked in the field for thirteen years as a massage therapist in HIV/AIDS clinics and hospices. She was awarded the Jefferson Award for Public Service for this work in 2007 and has presented her research numerous times at the Nevada Public Health Association and American Public Health Association conventions and was chosen to attend the Clinton Global Initiative University in Miami, FL.   Dr. Weisman spent 13 years caring for people living with HIV/AIDS, as well as volunteering and working for hospice patients. During this time, she developed continuing education classes for nurses and other health care providers to help teach some techniques that are soothing for patients and non-pharmacological. Her role now with the medical school will be to introduce these and many other techniques to the medical students, faculty and residents to help them manage their own stress as well as to help provide a broader understanding of integrative treatments for their patients.  Dr. Weisman earned her B.A., M.P.H. and Ph.D. degrees from UNLV (Human Touch: Perceptions of Self-Efficacy From a Non-Pharmacology Treatment for Individuals Living With HIV/AIDS). Additionally, she studied at the University of Cape Town with New York University in a 4- week immersion course where she worked with the families and patients in a community setting. She specializes in integrating massage therapy and other integrative practices into the care and treatment of patients. Dr. Weisman has taught therapists about her integrative techniques and works to teach patients, care providers and families techniques that they can use at home. Support this podcast

Listen NowSince the 1970s Medicare beneficiaries have had the option of receiving their Medicare benefits via private health insurance plans.  Today 27% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 13.3 million seniors, are enrolled in these private plans.  MA program growth in the past few years has been rapid, enrollment almost tripled between 2003 and 2012 and the program is estimated to add another 1.5 million beneficiaries this year.  Medicare, which pays MA plans a capitated rate rather than on a FFS basis, reimbursed MA plans $136b. in 2012.  The program has not been without controversy largely due to payments or over payments made to MA-participating plans.   For example, just prior to the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act the CBO estimated equalizing payments between Medicare Advantage programs and the traditional fee for service Medicare program would generate $170 billion in savings over the ten year budget window.   Despite ACA reforms to MA, MedPAC (the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission) estimated in 2013 overall payments to plans will equal $6 billion more for MA enrollees than would have been paid to cover the same enrollees in Medicare fee for service.  Dr. Biles begins this 27-minute interview by explaining how private insurance plans participte in the MA program including how they bid for services against county benchmark rates.  He explains why MA participation has nearly tripled over the past decade, what MA payment and quality incentive reforms were included in the Affordable Care Act including the star bonus program, MA risk adjustment, the quality of care provided by MA plans and possible future reforms to the MA program are also all discussed.       Since 2000 Dr. Brian Biles has been a Professor in the Health Policy Department at The George Washingtion University and is also a Senior Vice President at the Commonwealth Foundation. Previously Dr. Biles served for seven years as staff director of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, served later as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton Administration and also served as Deputy Secretary for Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  Among other professional activities, Dr. Biles chairs the Medical Administrators Conference and is a Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine and an Invited Lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  Dr. Biles received his Doctor of Medicine and Bachelor of Arts with honors from the University of Kansas and he holds a masters degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com