Category: News

  • Cherry Hill school board gets pushback on suggestion to drop African American history mandate

    Cherry Hill school board gets pushback on suggestion to drop African American history mandate

    The Cherry Hill school board made national headlines when it became the first New Jersey school system to require students to take a course on African American history to graduate.

    Five years later, the board debated whether the course should be dropped as a requirement in light of budget problems in South Jersey’s largest school system.

    And while officials have assured the community that the course will remain part of the curriculum, the debate highlights the difficult choices that districts are facing during a tough budget year. In Cherry Hill, the board approved a budget that will cut 70 positions, increase class sizes, and raise property taxes to eliminate a $29 million deficit.

    As that budget process played out this spring, board member Renee Cherfane suggested the district could reconsider African American history if future budget cuts are necessary. The idea drew pushback from students as well as community and civil rights leaders, who pledged to fight any attempt to roll back the requirement.

    “Black history is an essential part of American history,” said Ma’isha Aziz, president of the Camden County East branch of the NAACP. “Teaching it helps ensure students gain a fuller understanding of the nation’s past and present.”

    Cherry Hill High School East senior Skylar Adams, a member of the African American Cultural Club, said changing the course would send the wrong message. Black students make up about 10% of the district’s 11,000 students.

    “In the world we live in today where the rights and voices of African Americans are constantly being challenged and minimized, now is not the time to make our history seem less important,” Adams told the board. “Making this course an elective instead of a requirement sends a message that learning about Black history is optional and not important enough for every student.”

    Superintendent Kwame Morton, the district’s first Black schools chief, praised students who made passionate appeals to the board to keep the course. He reassured them that the course was not in jeopardy.

    “The board is not at this point taking action on any recommendation to eliminate that course. That’s not what’s happening,” Morton said.

    Cherry Hill Superintendent Kwame Morton.Alejandro A. Alvarez / Staff Photographer

    Here is what to know about the debate around the course:

    How the issue unfolded

    Cherfane sparked a heated discussion during a board meeting last month when she suggested making African American studies an elective instead of a required course. She cited the district’s $29 million deficit, which prompted layoffs and cuts.

    In the event the board has to cut additional teaching positions in the future, having that class as a mandate limits options, she said. About 800 students are required to take the course every year, she said.

    “It’s not about offering the class. It’s about requiring it,” Cherfane said. ”We wouldn’t be getting rid of it entirely.”

    Other board members asked Cherfane to explain why she targeted that class. The district offers other electives, such as multivariable calculus, a high-level math course that few students take, that are not required by the state as a graduation requirement, said board member Miriam Stern.

    Board president Gina Winters said any review examining potential cost savings should not be specific to one class. The African American history class was pitched by students and supported by the community, she said.

    “I understand that it’s a tight budget, but we also have a responsibility as a board to educate our children on the things that our community thinks are important,” Winters said.

    Cherfane did not respond to messages seeking comment.

    How did the class get started?

    By an 8-0 vote, the board approved the course as a graduation requirement in February 2021. Students who organized Black Lives Matter protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 in Minneapolis by a white police officer asked for the class. They said Black history was mostly taught only in February.

    Cherry Hill became the first district in the state with the requirement, according to the New Jersey Department of Education. New Jersey and Pennsylvania require history to be taught, but districts decide the content of their courses. Philadelphia and Camden schools also mandate a course in African American history to graduate.

    The district developed a curriculum for a semester course and began offering it for the 2021-22 school year for freshmen and sophomores at its two comprehensive high schools. The district hired two teachers.

    Teacher Jennifer LaShure said the course tackles topics that previously received little attention in U.S. history classes. She has included units on early African culture, arts, systemic oppression of today, anti-racism, and activism.

    “I worry about the message that it sends to the students that something as important as history can be taken away,” LaShure told the board. “We see it all over, but it’s scary to see it happening right here.”

    Community pushback

    Former board member Corrien Elmore-Stratton, who was the only Black member of the board that approved the course as a requirement, said the need for it remains.

    “… We are already having spaces and places where our students are being erased, torn down, no longer heard, misunderstood, and DEI has become a dirty word,” she said, referencing President Donald Trump’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. “It really is disheartening to hear that anyone on this board of education to think of to do.”

    Carole Roskoph, a retired educator and former Cherry Hill council member, said she was “perplexed” by the discussion.

    “It doesn’t make sense to me,” she said.

    Motion withdrawn

    Following the discussion, Cherfane made a motion to refer the issue to the policy committee to review possibly adjusting the graduation requirement for African American history. She withdrew the motion midway through voting, after a board member expressed unreadiness, and the discussion abruptly ended.

    Cherfane did not reintroduce the motion at the May 26 meeting and it was unclear if the matter would be addressed again.

    Other cuts, however, are moving forward in Cherry Hill and will take effect next school year.

  • He wrote the book on sports gambling’s rise. Here’s what he thinks you should know.

    He wrote the book on sports gambling’s rise. Here’s what he thinks you should know.

    Moments after Purdue University soundly beat Grambling State in the first round of the 2024 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, Carson Barrett turned to his phone.

    The Purdue guard, playing with a torn right meniscus, had sunk a three-pointer in the game’s final minutes to put his team up, 78-50. But amid the happy afterglow of victory, Barrett’s phone filled with venom.

    “I hope you f— die,” read one text message that he received.

    “Kill yourself for taking that 3 you f— worthless loser,” added another.

    It’s the opening anecdote of the book Everybody Loses: The Tumultuous Rise of American Sports Gambling, an exploration of the fallout from a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to enact individual sports betting laws. The decision has resulted in gambling becoming an omnipresent part of everyday American life.

    Barrett became a harassment target because his three-pointer ensured that Purdue would cover a 27-point spread, explains author Danny Funt, a journalist who has written for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New Yorker.

    While researching “Everybody Loses: The Tumultuous Rise of American Sports Gambling,” author Danny Funt interviewed officials at FanDuel and DraftKings as well as people who suffered from gambling addiction.Handout

    Funt revisits critical moments in how gambling was embraced, like NBA commissioner Adam Silver writing an op-ed for the New York Times in 2014 that called for sports betting to be legalized and regulated. Silver claimed that nearly $400 billion was wagered annually on sports. But that eye-catching sum, Funt writes, was actually just a thinly sourced guesstimate.

    Once states began legalizing sports betting, professional leagues abandoned their once- impassioned opposition to having any association with gambling, and entered into lucrative partnerships with sportsbook companies.

    But some ex-league officials who spoke to Funt — including former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and former MLB commissioner Fay Vincent — expressed lingering concerns.

    “What’s going to happen is. it’s going to get out of hand. Gamblers will start fixing games,” Vincent correctly predicted. “And when that happens, Congress will intervene.”

    Funt retraced the evolution of sportsbook companies FanDuel and DraftKings, and spoke with unnamed officials at each company about their business practices, including VIP managers who offer benefits — like free Super Bowl tickets — to bettors who consistently wager and lose large sums.

    He also interviewed Nigel Eccles, a FanDuel cofounder.

    “I love games that are beatable,” Eccles told Funt. “Unfortunately, what they’ve done with sports betting in the U.S. is turn it into a game that you can’t win, because if you win, they shut your account.”

    Yet Everybody Loses isn’t told strictly through the eyes of executives and policymakers. Funt also interviewed ordinary people — a fifth-grade teacher in Connecticut and a college student from Washington Township, Gloucester County — whose lives were derailed by an all-consuming gambling addiction.

    Inquirer reporters recently spoke to Funt, 34, about the research he conducted for his book, which was published in January by Simon & Schuster.

    This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

    You interviewed sportsbook industry officials. Was there anything they said that surprised you?

    To hear an executive at a company say: ‘If you think about it, my job was to basically slowly bleed someone dry.’ We understand that’s the essence of gambling, but to hear an executive use those words was striking.

    And there were definitely a lot of things that I didn’t expect. I didn’t realize the scope of the online VIP business at all. The things they’ll do to pamper those customers, the specifics of it blew me away: Throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game or playing pickup basketball on an NBA court.

    The point of doing that is so these customers feel like [VIP managers] are their friend. So if they ever think of pulling back on their betting, they’ll lose all these perks — but also lose a friend that they’ve made.

    Should regulators consider limits to prop bets or in-game microbets?

    That’s something that these companies have invented, essentially, to give you a million ways of constructing same-game parlays, which are their most profitable product. So they want you to bet on limitless things, so you can construct an infinite number of same-game parlays.

    The other thing with these in-game bets — which is the fastest-growing side of betting, and you can see companies like DraftKings really pushing them — is that it’s a road to compulsive behavior, if you’re betting on a minute-by-minute basis.

    You could definitely restrict those bets, as far as the variety and abundance of them. But you could also mandate more of a responsibility on the operators to pick up on risky behavior from their customers, and intervene accordingly.

    Funt has written for The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and The Wall Street Journal.Handout
    What do you think about the gambling content that young people encounter on social media, television and at sporting events?

    As far as kids go, there are a lot of data points that are really alarming. I live in Charlotte. Half of the calls to the problem gambling hotline in North Carolina are coming from parents who are so concerned about their kids betting.

    There are a lot of things that made [betting] mainstream, but I have to think having A-list movie stars and our heroes in sports pitching [these products] constantly has to have an effect on kids.

    A lot of people I talk to — whether it’s educators, health experts, or lawmakers — this potential epidemic of gambling among kids is what they’re most worried about.

    You write about sportsbook customers who had winning streaks, and then were stunned to find that the companies limited their accounts.

    That limiting comes as such a surprise to people. They think, based on the premise of legalization, that there is a relatively level playing field. Then they learn that no, the deck is stacked against you.

    If you do anything that shows you’re a competent bettor, you’ll get cut down to being able to bet only pennies on an NFL game. It feels grossly unfair. There are some states looking into regulating that.

    But the advertising so clearly says that this is a way to make money. I just walked by an ad for PrizePicks, which said, basically, make money because you know sports.

    What’s your perspective on prediction markets, which allow people to wager on everything from Hollywood awards shows to military conflicts?

    I mainly think of them as a workaround — they offer gambling by a different name, and avoid paying state taxes. But by and large, I think they’re sports-betting operators. So the question becomes: Is this the logical extension of Americans wanting to bet on more and more stuff?

    Kalshi’s CEO has said their ambition is for people to bet on literally everything, eventually. But I’m curious if that’s a viable business. I don’t think the average person wants to put in the time to bet on legislation, or the weather tomorrow, or who’s going to win at the Oscars. I think that is sadly feeding people who have an addiction.

    The Inquirer will continue to report on issues related to the growth of gambling addiction — among teens and adults — across Pennsylvania. If you, or someone you know, wants to speak with a reporter, please contact David Gambacorta or William Bender at dgambacorta@inquirer.com and wbender@inquirer.com

  • 15 arrested as police response to Gayborhood Pride festival spurs criticism from some in LGBTQ+ community

    15 arrested as police response to Gayborhood Pride festival spurs criticism from some in LGBTQ+ community

    Fifteen people were arrested at a Pride celebration in Philadelphia’s Gayborhood on Sunday, authorities said, and the response drew criticism from some LGBTQ+ residents over how police handled crowd control at the event.

    Images of police officers engaging with attendees in Center City circulated widely across local social media feeds on Monday, featuring criticisms of what some considered to be an outsize and aggressive law enforcement presence.

    In one image shared on X, a police officer on a motorcycle appears to push against a woman’s chest, and, in another photo, pushes the woman against a garage door while arresting her.

    Others videos showed police on horseback dispersing young people from a sidewalk, as well as officers physically struggling with a man outside the gay bar Woody’s.

    And in yet another clip, a row of police officers — two of whom were wearing face coverings — formed a line to clear a barricaded Gayborhood street while officers on motorbikes rode along the sidewalks.

    Joshua Stokem, a New Jersey resident who regularly attends the city’s Pride celebrations, said he had never seen that large a police presence during such festivities.

    “They were definitely getting more and more aggressive” as the gathering stretched into the early evening, said Stokem, who works as a promoter for LGBTQ+ events at city bars.

    Councilmember Rue Landau, herself a member of the LGBTQ+ community, said in a statement Monday that LGBTQ+ constituents had reached out to her office in “outrage” and that she was working to better understand the department’s strategy.

    “Police brutality has no place at Pride,” she said.

    The revelry outside some of the city’s best-known gay establishments was not affiliated with the official Philly Pride March and Festival event that took place on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway throughout the day, Stokem said. But many attendees migrated from the Philadelphia Museum of Art to the Gayborhood that afternoon, he said, where post-parade parties have become tradition.

    Hours before police dispersed the crowd, Stokem said, guests were surprised to arrive and find that several Gayborhood blocks around 13th and Walnut Streets — cordoned off in years prior for attendees to wander — were instead blocked with metal barricades, limiting crowds to the sidewalks.

    He said that layout caused large groups of people to pack into the corridors outside bars and restaurants and, in his view, created confusion and exacerbated some of the issues attendees had with police.

    For their part, police said they deployed 600 officers for Sunday’s Pride events — including 150 officers to the Gayborhood — to maintain public safety.

    Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel said in a statement that the celebration was “by all accounts, a successful event attended and enjoyed by thousands of people.”

    Still, “as crowd sizes increased in the Gayborhood, officers responded to a growing number of public safety concerns, including fights, disorderly behavior, blocked roadways, and the challenges associated with safely managing large crowds in a confined area,” Bethel said.

    Bethel said the department had expected the Parkway celebration to gradually transition to the Gayborhood event, but that did not happen.

    Instead, he said, two separate gatherings were essentially happening at once, creating a situation that was “challenging to manage safely” and led to the decision to clear parts of the neighborhood.

    “That decision was not made in any way, shape, or form because people were celebrating Pride,” he said.

    In all, 15 people were arrested, according to Bethel, primarily for offenses related to disorderly conduct. One person was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault of a police officer.

    Bethel said the department was aware that some officers were wearing face coverings, which are not part of the department’s official uniform, while dispersing crowds.

    “We are currently working to identify the officers involved,” the commissioner said, adding the department would determine whether discipline was necessary.

    Stokem, the Pride attendee, was one of the social media users who documented the police presence. He said he left the Gayborhood around 7:30 or 8 p.m., when officers with batons ramped up enforcement.

    “Police, dressed up as if we’re going to riot, basically start steamrolling the street,” he said. ”They’re just like shoving everyone to a corner and expecting us to … honestly, I didn’t know what they were expecting.”

    Some of those arrested appeared to be teenagers who were not part of the Pride celebration, Stokem said, but had nonetheless taken part in the revelry and were behaving disorderly and fighting outside nearby non-LGBTQ+ bars.

    “I don’t think it’s OK for that to be happening, but what are you going to do about it?” he said of those altercations and his frustration with the resulting police response. “Because now you’re punishing the entire community.”

  • Trump nominates Todd Blanche for attorney general

    Trump nominates Todd Blanche for attorney general

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday nominated his former personal lawyer Todd Blanche to serve as attorney general, elevating a loyal and trusted ally who as acting attorney general has shown a willingness to execute Trump’s maximalist demands.

    The announcement, teased by White House officials last week, comes as public scrutiny of Blanche intensifies over his role in an administration push for a $1.8 billion fund with taxpayer money to pay those claiming they were victims of government mistreatment, most likely including rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The nomination was disclosed in a notice Monday on the White House’s website, saying that Trump had sent Blanche’s name to the Senate.

    It remains unclear if Blanche, who promoted an expansive view of executive power at the expense of the legislative branch both as Trump’s defense lawyer and as the Justice Department’s second in command, will have sufficient support in the Senate to be confirmed as tensions grow between the White House and congressional Republicans.

    A confirmation hearing for Blanche could pose a tricky political test for Republicans as the party prepares for midterm elections this year. A recent closed-door meeting between Blanche and Senate Republicans was described as blistering, with dozens of lawmakers sharply criticizing Blanche over the $1.8 billion fund.

    Senators, however, failed to pass restrictions on any such payouts, suggesting their unhappiness with the White House may have ebbed.

    His path to the permanent appointment he has long coveted will also be complicated by lingering anger — and unanswered questions — related to his handling of the release of millions of pages of investigative files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    In recent weeks, his predecessor, Pam Bondi, who was fired in April after Trump privately vented over her failed efforts to prosecute his political enemies, placed primary responsibility for the release of the Epstein files on Blanche during an interview with a House committee.

    Blanche, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, has shed his reputation as a mildly moderating voice within the department as he has energetically pursued a job whose main prerequisite, in the view of current and former officials, is never saying no to the boss.

    A wide range of former law enforcement officials have sharply criticized Blanche’s brand of justice, saying he has deployed prosecutorial power to punish Trump’s perceived foes, and in the process badly damaged the department’s reputation with the courts and the public.

    As acting attorney general, Blanche has taken a series of actions against Trump targets, including green-lighting the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for posting to social media an image of seashells arrayed to read “86-47,” which Blanche has described as a credible threat of violence against a sitting president. (The phrase “86” is a slang term evolved from restaurant parlance for throwing something out, and “47” refers to Trump, the nation’s 47th president.)

    Blanche expressed internal reservations about the highly unusual plan to establish the fund, which also included a broad shelter from tax investigations for Trump, his family, and his businesses that could be worth more than $100 million.

    But Blanche and one of his top aides, Stanley Woodward Jr., signed off on the plan, unlike some first-term Trump appointees who resigned or offered fierce resistance when confronted with demands they considered questionable. It was immediately assailed as a political slush fund by Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Testifying before lawmakers last week, Blanche said the Justice Department was giving up the plan for the fund but would keep Trump’s shelter from tax investigations in place. Trump later cast doubt on the abandoning of the fund, saying, “I love it.”

    “Todd Blanche has never stopped acting as Donald Trump’s personal lawyer,” said Stacey Young, the founder of Justice Connection, an organization of former department employees that includes many career prosecutors forced out by Blanche as he has sought to reshape the department to Trump’s liking.

    “He has used his high position at the department to enter into a corrupt deal with the president and his family, advance vindictive prosecutions, illegally fire career employees, smear whistleblowers, and attack the judiciary,” she added.

    The fund was the result of secret talks between Trump’s private lawyers and officials working for Blanche, as a means of settling a $10 billion lawsuit Trump had filed against the government over the leak of his tax returns, and unrelated claims for about $230 million that Trump had filed against the Justice Department and the FBI over past investigations and prosecutions.

    Blanche and his team sought to create a settlement that would prevent the government from paying taxpayer money to Trump, which they saw as a potential ethical, legal, and political catastrophe.

    In his testimony to lawmakers last Tuesday, Blanche insisted the protection of Trump and his family from tax audits or investigations would not be affected by the withdrawal of the fund proposal, and would remain in place.

    “So the blanket immunity is not something that you’re going to move back on?” asked Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), who accused Blanche of prioritizing the president’s financial interests over the public good.

    “You do not belong in this job,” she added.

    But Trump, who has said he owes his freedom to Blanche’s hard-nosed legal efforts on his behalf in the criminal cases against him, appears to believe otherwise.

    Blanche first gained the confidence of Trump while he was out of office, battling multiple investigations and indictments. Blanche became Trump’s defense lawyer in 2023, and represented him when he went on trial a year later in New York City; Trump was convicted on charges of falsifying business records.

    Since becoming the deputy attorney general in early 2025, Blanche has executed sweeping changes at the Justice Department, where he has proudly described firing more than 200 agents and prosecutors who worked on cases involving Trump or his allies. He has also talked of being at war with federal judges.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Robert Coles, Pulitzer-winning child psychiatrist, is dead at 97

    Robert Coles, a child psychiatrist by training and a storyteller by inclination whose scores of books and articles transported readers into the minds of children, opening new vistas on issues as varied as race relations and moral reasoning, died Thursday in Lincoln, Mass. He was 97.

    The death, at a hospice facility, was confirmed by his son Robert.

    A longtime professor at Harvard University, Dr. Coles eschewed ideologies and psychiatric orthodoxies, visiting the homes of children — first in the American South and then around the world — to listen intently to what they, their parents, and others had to say. He returned again and again, sometimes for months or even years, building the trust that underpinned his work.

    He told searing accounts illustrating illusive truths of a fast-changing society, beginning with the tale of Ruby Bridges, who as a 6-year-old walked through a screaming mob in 1960 as part of an effort to integrate a public school in New Orleans. From the households of poor Black families to those of rich white ones, from Appalachia to the Arctic, Dr. Coles visited children whose voices were not often heard. He once rode a bus for a whole year with Black youngsters being transported to schools in white neighborhoods.

    Dr. Coles then wrote it all down, distilling the tape recordings of conversations, the children’s crayon drawings ,and his voluminous notes into compelling verbal snapshots of how children grapple with challenge. His five-volume book series Children of Crisis was published between 1967 and 1977; Volumes 2 and 3 won him a Pulitzer Prize in 1973.

    Some criticized his approach as scattershot and unscientific, and Dr. Coles readily admitted he veered from exact transcriptions to tell what he considered greater truths.

    But eminent sociologist David Riesman said in an interview with Time magazine in 1972 that the effect of Dr. Cole’s work was to obliterate stereotypes, to demonstrate that “policemen are not pigs, white Southerners are not rednecks, and Blacks are not all suffering in exotic misery.”

    “What he is saying is ‘People are more complicated, more varied, more interesting, have more resiliency and more survivability than you might think,’” Reisman said. “‘I listen to them! You listen to them! Please listen! Again and again!’”

    Dr. Coles offered proof “that hope is alive,” Kenneth Clark, a psychologist whose insights contributed to the Supreme Court outlawing the racial segregation of schools in 1954, said in an interview with the New York Times Magazine in 1978. “I don’t know if he’s one of the 10 just men required to keep this world spinning around,” Clark said, adding: “You can’t judge him by normal standards any more than you could Martin Luther King; they are men possessed.”

    Dr. Coles acknowledged a sense of “moral anxiety” as a white man writing about those with a less privileged existence.

    “I work with very vulnerable people, and yet I’m not very vulnerable myself,” he said in an interview with the New York Times in 1997. “It makes me uncomfortable, seeing the disparities between the world I document and the world I inhabit.”

    Dr. Coles was an exceedingly popular professor at Harvard, using great literature to stimulate debate in courses in its undergraduate college, as well as its schools of medicine, law, business, and government. He wrote books on personalities as diverse as Bruce Springsteen and the novelist Walker Percy, and also found time to write novels, children’s books, and poetry.

    He was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1981, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998, and the National Humanities Medal in 2001.

    So what was he? Dr. Coles variously described himself as a doctor, child psychiatrist, wanderer, oral historian, social anthropologist, teacher, friend, storyteller, busybody, nuisance, and “idiosyncratic oddball.”

    His friend Percy, himself a physician, once judged that the doctor designation, if broadly applied, might be most apt.

    “He treads a narrow path between theorizing and novelizing and emerges as what in fact he is: physician, and a wise and gentle one,” Percy said. “He is doctor to the worst of our life.”

    Robert Martin Coles was born Oct. 12, 1928, in Boston, to Philip Coles, an engineer who immigrated from England, and Sandra (Young) Coles, the daughter of an Iowa Episcopal minister. A deeply affecting memory of his youth in the suburb of Milton was how his parents read Charles Dickens, George Eliot, and other novelists aloud to each other.

    He went to Boston Latin School and graduated from Harvard in 1950. An essay he wrote on William Carlos Williams, the poet and pediatrician, led to him meeting Williams. After reading the essay, Williams replied on a prescription slip: “Not bad — for a Harvard student.”

    Dr. Coles was inspired to become a doctor himself, and earned a medical degree from Columbia University and interned at University of Chicago clinics.

    He said in an interview with the journal Christianity and Literature in 2005 that he worked with polio patients as a resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, and became interested in addressing the psychological impacts of the disease. This, as well as a reluctance to inflict pain on children by giving them shots, persuaded him to switch his specialty from pediatrics to child psychiatry.

    In 1958, he was drafted into the Air Force, given the rank of captain and sent to a psychiatric hospital in Biloxi, Miss. He became angered over the treatment of Black Southerners after he saw a “vicious” fight erupt when Black people tried to integrate a beach.

    He began his study of children with Bridges, whose poise in the face of racism moved him deeply. The girl was threatened daily on her way to class. She was told her food was poisoned and was kept isolated in a classroom without other students for a year.

    Dr. Coles noticed that she seemed to be talking to the hostile white people, and asked her why. She said she was praying for them.

    But why? “They need praying for,” the little girl said.

    Bridges would be a central theme running through Dr. Coles’ career. She inspired him to write about children’s moral and spiritual lives, and the two wrote a children’s book together.

    And when Bridges grew up, she told him that it was time for him to write Women of Crisis to accompany his earlier series.

    Dr. Coles teamed up with his wife, Jane, to write that two-volume women’s study, which was published in 1978 and 1980. But that was hardly the greatest of her contributions to his work: It was she who had urged him to stop asking questions during an interview with children in New Orleans when they were responding with a long series of monosyllabic replies.

    “Why don’t you just shut up and watch television with them?” she said, according to an oral history interview with Dr. Coles by the Southern Oral History Program in 1974.

    In Volume 4 of Children of Crisis, Dr. Cole described the approach he finally developed. No questions — or at least, not many.

    “I would tell the children I wasn’t interested in finding out anything in particular,” he said, “merely knowing, to a degree, how they lived and what they thought about — insofar as it was their inclination to tell me.”

    One thing Dr. Coles learned about children was that they were absorbed in their daily environment, not focused on concerns like nuclear war. Even when they did talk about such issues, they grounded them in their daily lives. A Black child in Mississippi once told him that, “If the Ku Klux Klan ever get that bomb, it would be real bad for us.”

    He noted that children of migrant workers saw everything as temporary. Or, rather, he let a migrant child make the point for himself: “I love the yo-yo, because it keeps going, up and down, and that’s what I do.”

    Pictures often told more than words. A deprived child of a migrant worker depicted himself without arms and gave the boss an ogre’s ugly teeth.

    As Dr. Coles moved around the country to study groups as diverse as Alaska Natives, wealthy suburbanites, and Hopi Indians, his wife and three sons moved with him.

    Jane Hallowell, whom Dr. Coles married in 1960, died in 1993. In addition to Robert, he is survived by two more sons, Daniel and Michael, and four grandsons. He lived in Concord, Massachusetts.

  • Body of missing Philly swimmer found in New Jersey, officials say

    A body believed to be a swimmer who went missing in the Delaware River was found by police after it washed ashore in Palmyra, Burlington County, Monday.

    Carlos Gil-Reyes, a 31-year old Philadelphia barber, was identified by friends after diving into the Delaware River in the city’s Torresdale section early Friday. He never resurfaced.

    New Jersey State Police said the body they found matched the description of Gil-Reyes. The case remains under investigation.

    Gil-Reyes was among about 20 people who gathered at the Delaware River in boats off Pleasant Hill Park in Philadelphia’s Torresdale section around 1 a.m. Friday, according to police.

    At some point, Gil-Reyes jumped into the water with another person, but wasn’t able to get back to the boat.

    “He swam out of the boat with my other friend and the last word he told my friend, ‘Hey, I can’t no more, I love you,’” Argeni Infante Reyes, a friend of Gil-Reyes, told reporters. “That breaks my heart because the last word he said is, ‘I can’t swim anymore and I love you.’”

  • Progressive challenger overtakes Spencer Pratt in race for LA mayor

    Progressive challenger overtakes Spencer Pratt in race for LA mayor

    Nithya Raman, a progressive member of the Los Angeles City Council, pulled ahead of reality TV star Spencer Pratt in the Los Angeles mayoral primary Sunday, as a surge in the vote count signaled a potential shift in the race for second place.

    Five days after the election deadline, it remained officially undetermined who will face Mayor Karen Bass, the incumbent, in the November contest to decide who will lead the nation’s second most populous city. The primary race has yet to be called by the Associated Press, which estimates that about 80% of the vote has been counted.

    But late returns have trended heavily in favor of the liberals who make up an overwhelming majority of the city’s electorate.

    Bass, 72, a former Democratic member of Congress who has already advanced to the November runoff, remained in the lead with 34.68% of the vote, according to the updated tally released by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.

    Raman, 44, who has steadily gained ground as the count has progressed, had 27.12%, enough to overtake Pratt by a little more than 3,000 votes. He had been running in second place since election night.

    A resident of Pacific Palisades who lost his home in the fire and channeled the fury of his neighbors, Pratt, 42, a Republican, dropped to third place with 26.69% of the vote.

    A Los Angeles mayoral candidate can win outright by receiving a majority of votes in the primary. Otherwise, the top two finishers regardless of party advance to the general election. But Los Angeles residents vote by mail in large numbers, and ballot counting is a slow process, with leads often shifting as the tally drags on for days or even weeks. Mail-in ballots with an Election Day postmark are accepted by county election officials through Tuesday.

    On Sunday, Raman said in a statement that “we are encouraged by the latest vote count and remain grateful to the thousands of Angelenos who have powered this campaign.”

    Pratt did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Alex Stack, a campaign spokesperson for Bass, signaled the likely points of contention between the two if Raman ultimately takes the second slot on the ballot. Though her support has been eroded by the wildfires and general voter angst in the city, Bass has largely maintained the support of the center-left establishment in the city while Raman has been backed by a younger and more progressive base.

    “We look forward to winning a contest against an opponent who allows encampments near schools and fights against hiring more cops,” Stack said in a statement, “yet is MIA on saving Hollywood jobs and fighting back when ICE invades LA.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • European leaders voice ‘urgent need’ to bolster Ukraine’s defenses against ballistic missiles

    LONDON — The leaders of the U.K., Ukraine, France, and Germany discussed the “urgent need” to ramp up production of weapons to combat Russia’s powerful hypersonic Oreshnik ballistic missiles in a meeting in London on Sunday.

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at 10 Downing Street.

    In a statement released by Starmer’s office following their evening meeting, the leaders condemned Russia’s “large-scale missile and drone attacks — including the repeated use of the Oreshnik missiles — on Ukrainian cities with a tragic toll on civilians.” They also condemned Russia’s “irresponsible and dangerous Russian drone incursions” into NATO territory, including last month’s in Romania.

    Russia has stepped up its aerial campaign against Ukraine recently, most notably with the launch of the Oreshnik missiles.

    “The leaders underlined the urgent need to scale up the production of interceptors and co-develop anti-ballistic missile and deep strike capabilities,” the leaders said.

    No details, financial or otherwise, on how this would be done were provided.

    Ukraine’s shortage of air defense systems, in part because of the depletion of U.S. stocks during the Iran war, has left civilians especially vulnerable to ballistic missiles, even as Kyiv’s defenses stop most of Moscow’s drones and its forces have made advances elsewhere on the battlefield.

    The worry for Ukrainians is that the Iran war, which has been in abeyance for weeks, may now reignite after Iran launched missiles on Sunday at Israel in the first such bombardment since a fragile ceasefire took effect in early April, complicating mediation efforts for a deal to end the war.

    Following their meeting in London, the European leaders called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to “an immediate and complete ceasefire” with the current line of contact as a starting point for any negotiations.

    The U.K., France, and Germany, the so-called E3 group of European nations, have been prominent backers of Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. The U.K. and France lead the “coalition of the willing” initiative to provide security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a peace process.

    The meeting comes in the wake of a Russian drone strike that killed three people waiting at a bus stop in southeastern Ukraine. A separate drone strike damaged a storage center for spent nuclear fuel in the Kyiv region, just 9 miles from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, Ukraine’s General Staff said. The attack sparked a fire that was extinguished within an hour. Radiation remains within safe levels, officials said.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said the incident was “deeply concerning” due to the large amounts of nuclear material held at the facility. He said in a statement that the agency would visit the site of the attack soon.

    The Russian attacks follow a large-scale Ukrainian drone attack on Saturday that targeted Saint Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, underscoring Kyiv’s growing ability to hit deep inside Russia.

    With the front line barely moving as swarms of drones hinder advances, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range strikes.

  • Trump allies wanted to ‘delete’ this consumer watchdog. Now it’s a political weapon.

    Trump allies wanted to ‘delete’ this consumer watchdog. Now it’s a political weapon.

    The Trump administration came to Washington last year seeking to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency that had survived industry anger, Republican opposition, and years of legal challenges.

    A year in, a much smaller bureau is still standing and has been remade to advance the president’s political goals.

    The bureau has begun to probe a class of smaller, mostly nonprofit lenders that Russell Vought, the acting director of the bureau, has characterized as unduly “woke.”

    On Friday, the bureau issued guidance that could make it harder for immigrants in the country illegally to obtain mortgages and credit cards. Meanwhile, the bureau’s public website invites consumers to complain if they have been refused service — or “de-banked” — for political or religious reasons, reflecting a priority of the administration and its allies in the conservative movement and the crypto industry.

    The moves represent a reorientation of an agency that had previously focused on aggressively policing larger financial institutions on behalf of ordinary consumers. Republicans and much of the financial services industry had long accused the bureau of its own brand of politicization under Democratic leadership, charging that it targeted industries and practices liberals hated.

    The Trump administration says it is correcting overreach during the Biden administration. They say the CFPB, under former director Rohit Chopra, bullied businesses and individuals it viewed as political enemies, pursued questionable legal theories, and imposed costs that ultimately fell on ordinary Americans.

    “We are fixing that, bringing the agency back to operating within statute and away from breaking the law, and making cases right to help small businesses and Americans who were victims of this thuggery,” a spokesperson for Vought said in a statement.

    Critics say the result is a bureau that has gone easy on the powerful while training its firepower on smaller targets.

    “Their first attempt was to kill the agency,” said Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank. But courts blocked the administration’s attempts to lay off almost all of its staff. Now, Klein and other critics say, Vought has found a different use for the agency.

    “Rather than hold themselves to a higher standard, they seem to be committing the same political persecutions they allege happened to them,” said Klein, who served in the Obama Treasury Department.

    The pivot is visible in the bureau’s recent scrutiny of community lenders — smaller banks and firms that operate in low-income rural and urban communities that are typically underserved by large Wall Street banks. In late April, the bureau’s chief legal officer, Mark Paoletta, sent questionnaires to at least four such lenders, according to people familiar with the probe. One of the questionnaires, reviewed by the Washington Post, demanded a broad swath of financial records, compliance documents, and business details.

    The bureau has legal authority to send such requests for market-monitoring purposes, but the lenders are typically far too small to be subject to CFPB supervision, falling beneath a $10 billion asset threshold.

    Among those targeted was Self-Help Ventures Fund, an arm of a Durham, N.C., lender with roughly $5 billion in assets. Self-Help, which traces its origins to a $77 bake sale in the early 1980s, is affiliated with the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer advocacy group that has been a vocal opponent of the administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB.

    Self-Help and CRL declined to comment for this article. The bureau’s interest in Self-Help has not been previously reported.

    Vought — who simultaneously runs the CFPB and the White House budget office — has made no secret that he holds negative views of the community lenders in question. At a House Budget Committee hearing in April, he said they “continue to be pushing an ideology that is very harmful.”

    The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to eliminate or drastically cut a federal program that funds and certifies community lenders. Bipartisan congressional majorities have rejected those efforts, but Vought has nevertheless withheld hundreds of millions of dollars Congress directed toward the program.

    When asked about the community lenders probe, administration officials sought to minimize the review, saying it represents only a tiny fraction of the bureau’s overall work, and declined to discuss any of the individual targets. A spokesperson for Vought attacked the lenders, saying they had directed money to LGBTQ health clinics, a transgender-themed fashion show, and a group that, she said, had threatened violence against federal immigration officials.

    The scrutiny of smaller community lenders contrasts with what the bureau has done, or stopped doing, elsewhere. Since taking office, the administration has dropped litigation and unwound settlements against some of the largest financial institutions in the country. In some cases, it halted checks that were set to go out to consumers. In other cases, it permanently gave up the right to reopen the claims against some companies in the future.

    In one such case, the watchdog dropped a lawsuit, filed in the waning days of the Biden administration, against the operator of the Zelle payment-transfer network and three of its owner banks — Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase — over allegations that customers lost nearly $1 billion to fraud on the platform.

    The banks called the suit politically motivated, arguing the CFPB was stretching existing law to hold them responsible for payments customers had authorized themselves.

    The Consumer Bankers Association, which represents large retail banks, said it is encouraged by the bureau’s new direction, praising its focus on “identifiable victims, measurable harm, and clear legal standards” over what it called novel legal theories.

    Even if the community lenders currently under investigation had engaged in misconduct, the scale of the wrongdoing would look like a rounding error in comparison with potential misconduct by the largest financial institutions that are currently getting a pass, said Mike Pierce, who worked at the CFPB from 2011 to 2018 and is now the executive director of Protect Borrowers, a nonprofit advocacy group.

    “Some of the biggest corporate bad actors in America have gotten a pass from this agency,” Pierce said. “And now it’s focused on little guys that are doing things the Trump administration finds politically unpalatable.”

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who conceived of the bureau, called the bureau’s pivot a betrayal of Trump’s own promises. “Donald Trump promised to lower costs ‘on day one,’” she said in a statement. “Instead, he’s co-opting the financial cop on the beat to rip away billions in relief for Americans scammed by giant banks and corporations and execute his extreme agenda.”

    Solveig Singleton, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the administration appeared to have discovered that the bureau could be “retargeted against its political opponents,” with broad discretion that makes it easy to frame such targeting as legitimate “policy spin.”

    She also warned that cutting staff could backfire because career employees facing performance pressure might well gravitate toward investigating smaller, easier targets that lack the resources to fight back.

    The longer-term solution, she said, requires Congress to curb the bureau’s unchecked discretion and ensure greater accountability over federal programs.

  • Why are birthrates down? You might be looking at the answer

    Why are birthrates down? You might be looking at the answer

    The enduring mystery of the fertility decline has a new culprit: the smartphone.

    Experts have long wondered if phones played a role in the birthrate decline — which began in 2007, the same year that Apple introduced the iPhone — but until now there had not been hard evidence to prove it.

    Two new papers, one published Monday and the other in May, are the first academic endeavors that test whether the smartphone was a cause.

    They are the most recent efforts to explain the sweeping fertility rate decline in the United States and other countries over the past 20 years. Researchers have already looked at contraception use, abortion rates, rising levels of female education, and even the popular television show 16 and Pregnant.

    Proving phones caused the decline is a tricky endeavor. There were a number of major events in those years, including the Great Recession, and isolating smartphone use is difficult.

    The gold standard for scientific evidence is known as random assignment. It compares outcomes for people randomly chosen to receive a treatment (like getting a smartphone) with people who are not.

    But that is not possible when it comes to ferreting out reasons for declining fertility.

    So researchers sought out data about smartphones that introduced randomness.

    Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, and Ezekiel Hooper, her student, used the spotty early rollout of the iPhone as a way to isolate the effects of the phone on fertility. The first iPhone was released in June 2007, they wrote, and was available only on the AT&T network until February 2011. The study compared fertility rates in U.S. counties that had near-universal AT&T coverage with counties that had little or none.

    Their paper, published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that the iPhone caused as much as half of the fertility decline between 2007 and 2011. The most pronounced effects were among young people aged 15 to 24.

    What happened in the counties with iPhones? One theory, Myers said, is that young people began to socialize more on their phones and less in person, and consequently were less likely to have sex and become pregnant.

    Myers said iPhones may also have made pornography more accessible, which led young people to substitute it for sex, or young people may have used them to obtain better information on avoiding pregnancy, including contraception and abortion.

    Researchers not involved in the study said the results were persuasive.

    Phillip B. Levine, an economist at Wellesley College, said he was “a little jealous” of the Middlebury data, which he said provided a real insight into a potential driver of a major social change.

    He said some variation in the AT&T data could throw off the final finding. For example, the company may have set up in counties that were wealthier, or more densely populated, introducing a pattern “that’s not likely to be random anymore,” he said.

    He said Myers tried to account for those variations, and that her findings made sense.

    But, he cautioned: “You shouldn’t take the result so literally and say: Oh, it’s the iPhone’s fault. It’s an example of the kinds of social influences that have led to the decline in birth rate.”

    Dropping birthrates, once a feature of rich societies, are now a near-global phenomenon. The sweep of the decline has researchers looking for common drivers. The authors of the second study also decided to look at smartphones.

    “Countries with very different healthcare systems, welfare regimes, abortion laws, religious traditions, recessions and demographic trends all saw similar breaks in the same window,” wrote the authors, Hernan Moscoso Boedo, an economics professor at the University of Cincinnati, and Nathan Hudson, a doctoral student.

    “Whatever caused it was something global — something that arrived in roughly the same form in all of these places at roughly the same time,” they wrote.

    They analyzed World Bank data measuring smartphone penetration and teenage fertility rates in 128 countries. In countries as varied as Iran, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Chile, Mexico, and Turkey, they found that teenage fertility declines accelerated once smartphones became a mass phenomenon.

    They tested their technology theory in the United States using data on wired broadband and 4G high-speed mobile networks. They looked at where access was better and worse and found a substantial effect: that fertility rates for teenagers declined fastest in counties with more high-speed access.

    Theodore Joyce, an economist at Baruch College, said he was skeptical of both studies. Teenage births have been falling since the 1990s, he said, long before smartphone technology came on the scene. Myers’ paper, he said, examined a short period before smartphones had fully penetrated.

    The hypothesis, he said, could be correct but “remains speculative.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.