Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Unraveling progress: The Supreme Court's ruling and its detrimental effect on mental health

Unraveling progress: The Supreme Court's ruling and its detrimental effect on mental health
Getty Images

Hilda H. McClure is the Chief Operating Officer at the Cannenta Center for Healing and Empowerment and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. She brings extensive expertise in trauma counseling adults. With a passion for empowering individuals, she also serves as a college counselor, leading Latinx Student Initiatives, a college professor and provides training to professionals in effectively serving the Hispanic community.



The Supreme Court recently ended affirmative action for institutions of higher education. As we continue to deal with the mental health crisis, a little known consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is the impact this decision will have on our nation’s mental health process, particularly the potential for creating more problems for our youth.

College students struggling with mental health concerns are at an all-time high, with 15 percent of students stating that they are contemplating suicide. As these campuses' demographics and diversity change, BIPOC students will be at greater risk for bias, prejudice and racism. Research shows that those who have been regularly treated unfairly can be more susceptible to mental health conditions such as low self-esteem and at higher risk for anxiety and depression.

Affirmative action opened doors for brilliant, deserving students of color to get into college and was designed to level the playing field for students. This Supreme Court ruling is taking us back many years

The APA CEO stated, “Scientific research has also found that exposure to diversity enhances critical thinking and promotes deeper information processing and problem-solving skills, among other benefits. Without purposeful attention to achieving diverse student bodies, our institutions of higher learning are likely to grow even more racially and ethnically polarized.”

One likely outcome of the Supreme Court ruling relates to the continued shortage of BIPOC therapists in the U.S. as most programs are out of reach due to high cost, lack of diversity in programming, and unpaid rigorous internships. This ruling is likely to further reduce the number of POC students getting into these needed programs, potentially creating the perfect storm of furthering the mental health crisis for generations to come.

All these factors will continue to erode the younger generation's mental health, while also inhibiting those therapists, programs, and resources from being available. Today’s choices will impact tomorrow’s workforce, economy and overall country’s well-being.

Affirmative action does not grant minority students unwarranted advantages or diminish students’ accomplishments in lieu of their race or ethnicity. Instead, it rectifies the historical discrimination faced by marginalized communities by offering them the same opportunities as their peers.

Though we may not be able to change the Supreme Court ruling, we can champion and advocate for colleges the value in diversity and inclusion efforts and to invest accordingly. In order to build a brighter future in the U.S., we must create and provide equitable opportunities for all students by addressing unequal funding, inadequate resources in underprivileged communities and the lack of culturally sensitive mental health resources.

Read More

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Getty Images, SvetaZi

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy

In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.

Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less