The SWCC (formerly the #Canadian Science Writers' Association) is mulling over the idea of doing a single, on-demand print version of the book 'From Typewriters to Twitter: Celebrating 50 Years of Science Writing' that I edited and wrote much of. Looking at possibly doing an on-demand print-run if enough interest is expressed (previous responses to a call for interest were lost due to email issues and staff turnover).
The cost of the books would be set to cover the costs of printing and shipping. Likely about $20-$30CDN plus shipping, for a bound paperback, limited edition. Price depends on the overall number ordered.
Some of you had a chance to see the PDF version. But who is interested in ordering a print version to grace your shelves?
I was managing editor and did much of the writing -- along with a great team. Many familiar names in science journalism contributed to this project. It also covers the origin of the CSWA -- as a Canadian branch of the #NASW.
Please let the association know if you would order a copy, and how many. If there is enough interest then an ordering process could be set up. Once they know who is interested, this will inform the SWCC's decision, and if they go ahead they can can contact you directly.
If you know others who would be interested, share this note.
Yes! I would order X number of copies! CONTACT: office@sciencewriters.ca Put "PRINT BOOK" in the subject heading.
(You can cc me if you want)
"Enforcing our rights to our web content shouldn’t be this hard": Comments filed today by the National Writers Union @FSP_NWU#NWU) National Press Photographers Association #NPPA and National Association of Science Writers #NASW on proposed rules for registration of copyright in updates to websites:
Iowa Senate File 538- gender transition procedures related to minors strips providers of Medicaid funding from Sept 18 forward and doesn't allow Medicaid to be used by clients for gender affirming treatment. If a counselor has a transgender client, and has used the gender dysphoria code and many others (7 pages of ICD codes) then they will be retroactively stripped of funding. I am so angry for clients and for providers. As a clinician, I feel so mad that states are telling transgender youth in lower SES that they can't be who they truly are, and now they can't even talk to a counselor. I just can't. @socialwork@Email2TootBot#SocialWork#psych#psychology#iowa#lgbtqia#transgender#transgenderrights#counseling#counselor#therapist#therapy
Christine -- This is horrible! What do you mean by retroactive? Does Iowa Senate File 538 claw back past payments? Cut providers off from Medicaid for past use of those billing codes? Does it totally drop those providers from the Medicaid program?
I'll go read this bill when I can -- clients in a moment to see.
Okay -- quick look -- seems already signed by the governor but not in force yet. Is this tied-up in court?
TITLE: DeSantis Kicks Off Feud Over College Board’s AP Psychology Class—Gender & Sexual Orientation Issues
Thank you Dr. Pope:
-- Forwarded --
Politico released an article: “DeSantis kicks off feud over College Board’s AP psych class—Florida school districts had raised questions about an AP Psychology “learning objective” that covers gender and sexual orientation.”
Excerpts:
The College Board has rejected changing a high school Advanced Placement psychology course’s lessons on gender and sexual orientation, in a direct challenge to Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration that could reignite conflict between the education giant and the presidential hopeful.
Florida school districts had raised questions about an AP Psychology “learning objective” that covers gender and sexual orientation, the College Board acknowledged Thursday, after the DeSantis administration expanded restrictions and regulations on classroom instruction in April.
<snip>
It is unclear whether Florida will now block the AP psychology course from classrooms, the College Board told educators.
“Please know that we will not modify our courses to accommodate restrictions on teaching essential, college-level topics,” the board said Thursday in a letter... “Doing so would break the fundamental promise of AP: colleges wouldn’t broadly accept that course for credit and that course wouldn’t prepare students for success in the discipline.”
The latest fracas between Florida and the College Board stems from a recently revamped state rule that expands legislation — panned as the “Don’t Say Gay” law by its critics — to restrict classroom instruction on sexual orientation or sexual identity to all K-12 students...
<snip>
On May 19, Florida’s education department pressed the College Board to review all of its courses to determine if any “need modification to ensure compliance” with Florida laws and regulations by this week. “Some courses may contain content or topics prohibited by State Board of Education rule and Florida law,” the state wrote to the board in a letter obtained by POLITICO.
The College Board retorted that its psychology lessons should remain unchanged, signaling a shift in how it will address Florida’s legal demands following this year’s battle over its proposed African American Studies course.
“The learning objective within AP Psychology that covers gender and sexual orientation has specifically been raised by some Florida districts relative to these recent regulations,” the board wrote to Florida officials. “That learning objective must remain a required topic, just as it has been in Florida since the launch of AP Psychology more than 30 years ago.”
Cassie Palelis, press secretary for the Florida Department of Education, said Thursday that the College Board is responsible for ensuring that their submitted materials comply with Florida law.
“We applaud the College Board for standing up to the state of Florida and its unconscionable demand to censor an educational curriculum and test that were designed by college faculty and experienced AP teachers who ensure that the course and exam reflect the state of the science and college-level expectations,” American Psychological Association CEO Arthur Evans Jr. said in a statement.
Florida’s objections to the AP African American studies course angered many Black leaders nationwide...
“We don’t know if the state of Florida will ban this course,” the College Board said of AP Psychology in a message to educators and schools. “To AP teachers in Florida, we are heartbroken by the possibility of Florida students being denied the opportunity to participate in this or any other AP course.”
The College Board also had a message for all educators: “Please know we will not modify any of the 40 AP courses — from art to history to science — in response to regulations that would censor college-level standards for credit, placement, and career readiness,” the board said. “We are resolute in this position, in part, because of what we learned from our mistakes in the recent rollout of AP African American Studies.
Florida is creating its own high-level courses and exams to rival the nationally recognized AP courses. State lawmakers earlier this year agreed to spend a combined $2.8 million developing a homegrown program and, in another challenge to the College Board, paved the way for students to use the Classic Learning Test, or CLT, as an alternative to the SAT and ACT.
TITLE: Healthcare Professional Associations and Blue/Red States
A topic that has been on my mind periodically -- the near inevitability that healthcare professional associations will be splitting into two or more factions in the coming few years. Yet I have not seen any discussion of this to-date.
I cast no shade upon associations (ACA, APA, NASW, AMA, etc.) and I do not have any particular current behavior of these associations in mind. In fact -- most associations have been publicly supportive of LBGTQ+, transgender, and reproductive choice rights; and sometimes immigrant and religious rights. Instead, I'm looking at two areas of likely concern:
a) Ethical codes versus law
b) Financial concerns
Most healthcare associations that I'm aware of have professional ethical code standards promoting client self-determination, and require equal treatment of all clients/patients. A large number of "red states" have recently passed or started enforcing any number of laws discriminating against transgender youth and adults, the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, abortion and other reproductive rights practices, and sometimes alternative religions. The exact details and rationale vary by state.
This all creates a major dilemma for healthcare practitioners in these red states. Do they:
Take an ethical stand and risk their licenses and/or jail time?
Protect their livelihoods and risk violating current professional association ethics rules?
Flee to "blue states"?
This all also creates dilemmas for professional associations. Do they:
Fight red state laws, and risk legal consequences for themselves and their members?
Enforce ethical practice standards in red states or turn a blind eye to discriminatory ethical code violations of members in red states in order to not make waves and maintain membership roles?
Change (water down) ethical codes in order to continue functioning in both blue and red states? Perhaps develop state-specific ethical codes? (Some ethical codes already contain possible escape clauses about functioning within the laws of each state.)
There are strong legal and ethical considerations in all of the above options.
Then -- perhaps -- there are financial concerns (although I hope money is not the deciding factor). The PGA Tour spent the past few years vilifying the human rights record of the Saudis and ostracizing golfers who joined the LIV Tour. Now they are merging, leading to charges of sportswashing and money trumping all else. I assume that healthcare provider associations operate differently (right?), but nonetheless find myself wondering which option would cost them more in terms of money, membership, and power:
a) Maintaining a strong emphasis on current non-discriminatory ethical codes, thereby causing an exodus of red state members and the creation of competing associations with ethical codes compatible with red state discriminatory laws? Or
b) Watering down ethical codes, not enforcing ethical codes, and/or claiming "following state law" trumps all else; thereby causing an exodus of progressive liberal members and the creation of competing associations with ethical codes stricter on non-discrimination and more compatible with blue state laws?
I fear that option a) directly above would be the more profitable choice. Everyone (progressive liberal and conservative) can continue functioning under watered-down ethics and associations can continue functioning in all states. I speculate that fewer members would be lost to progressive liberals resigning than to all members in red states resigning and associations risking prosecution by red state governments.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Are there publications and/or studies addressing these issues? Ongoing deliberations amongst healthcare professional association leadership?