Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Disaster Recovery Should Not Be Complicated by Politics
LOS ANGELES, California, May 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy analyst Christina Mojica:
* * *
Disaster recovery should not be complicated by politics
The distribution of federal disaster aid has drawn renewed scrutiny as approval rates have varied sharply across states. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, about 23% of aid requests from Democratic-led states were approved, compared to nearly 89% for Republican-led states. In some cases, requests were denied even when federal officials agreed the damage deserved help.
Under the current
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, May 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy analyst Christina Mojica:
* * *
Disaster recovery should not be complicated by politics
The distribution of federal disaster aid has drawn renewed scrutiny as approval rates have varied sharply across states. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, about 23% of aid requests from Democratic-led states were approved, compared to nearly 89% for Republican-led states. In some cases, requests were denied even when federal officials agreed the damage deserved help.
Under the currentsystem, the Executive Branch has broad authority to approve or deny disaster aid requests. That means the final decision over whether communities receive support is not governed by fixed rules or timelines, but by discretionary judgment at the federal level. The problem is not any one political outcome. The problem is a system that leaves decisions that should be as data-driven as possible vulnerable to political discretion.
Concerns about political influence over disaster aid decisions are not new. Economists and policy analysts have long documented how political incentives shape the allocation of disaster aid. A 2020 review found that federal disaster spending often followed electoral considerations more than actual need, a pattern visible from New Deal programs to modern Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declarations.
No matter the reason for these differences in how disaster aid is approved across states, the system produces the same result: recovery becomes slower, less consistent, and harder to plan. That lack of consistency affects recovery at every stage, especially in housing, where rebuilding depends not only on federal decisions, but on how quickly systems at every level can respond.
Housing recovery is usually the slowest and most fragile part of disaster response. Delays or unclear federal decisions slow down rebuilding at every step. Local governments can't start repairs without clarity regarding funding. Insurance companies respond to prolonged uncertainty by raising premiums, tightening coverage, or delaying payouts, and people who lost their homes compete for limited housing, which pushes rents higher. Lower-income families feel these pressures the most, often for years.
The FEMA was created in 1979 to help coordinate disaster response. The idea was simple: big disasters can overwhelm states, so the federal government steps in to help. But over time, the process for declaring disasters has become less predictable. There are no binding timelines for these decisions, and no requirement that presidential determinations follow FEMA's recommendations. The process ultimately depends on judgment at the federal level. This setup leads to uneven results, no matter who is in office.
Disaster recovery is not handled through a single, straightforward process. It moves through multiple agencies, programs, and funding streams, each with its own requirements and timelines. This complexity makes coordination harder and delays aid reaching communities, a problem researchers have pointed out for years.
Federal decisions are only one piece of the recovery process. Those decisions are further constrained by local rules that determine how quickly housing can be rebuilt. Even when funding or emergency authority exists, zoning restrictions, permitting requirements, historic review, shoreline rules, infrastructure assessments, and limits on temporary or replacement housing can prevent damaged units from coming back online. Delayed federal decisions can stall funding while local approvals can slow construction, and insurance uncertainty can delay investment. Each layer extends the timeline, and together they determine how much housing is restored and how quickly.
Puerto Rico demonstrated a different version of the same problem after Hurricane Maria. Although Congress approved billions in disaster recovery funding, disbursement was delayed for years by administrative and bureaucratic obstacles, sparking national controversy and multiple federal investigations. The consequences extended far beyond infrastructure. Housing reconstruction moved slowly, and many residents were unable to access assistance. Strict documentation requirements, including proof of homeownership, led to widespread denials of FEMA aid in a context where informal housing arrangements are common. As a result, some residents were forced to abandon damaged homes altogether. The effects were long-lasting, contributing to displacement and persistent housing vacancy across parts of the island.
Maui faced a different set of constraints, driven more by state and local rules than federal decisions, but the result was the same. In 2023, wildfires forced thousands of people out of their homes on the island of Maui, including in the town of Lahaina, where housing was already scarce. Recovery depended on both funding and how quickly the recovery process could move homes through approvals and back into construction. More than a year later, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii reported that few buildings had been rebuilt and many Lahaina residents were still waiting, slowed down by state and county approvals, unclear guidance, and permit issues. The report listed several hurdles, including historic reviews, infrastructure checks, shoreline rules, and limits on temporary housing. Maui County did make some changes, such as setting up an emergency permitting office and relaxing some rules, but many obstacles stayed in place. The slow recovery showed the limits of the recovery process as much as the damage itself. Housing reconstruction stalled, and roughly 90% of Lahaina burn-area residents were still displaced more than a year after the fires.
In Puerto Rico and Maui, recovery slowed because too many layers of approval could not keep up with the need to rebuild. The recovery process is structured in a way that produces these delays.
Large disasters often exceed what states can handle on their own, and federal support plays an important role in recovery. But that role should not extend to controlling the timing and distribution of aid through discretionary decisions. The federal government can provide funding, coordination, and technical support without acting as the central gatekeeper of recovery. Clear rules and set thresholds would make recovery more predictable and consistent, instead of leaving critical decisions to discretion. Those thresholds could be tied to measurable factors such as housing loss, displacement, and the extent of infrastructure damage, rather than left to case-by-case judgment.
A more resilient system would also rely less heavily on post-disaster federal intervention in the first place. States that face recurring disasters should maintain stronger reserves and planning systems before emergencies occur, rather than depending primarily on federal approval after the fact. Private insurance markets also play an important role in recovery, particularly when pricing and coverage better reflect long-term risk. A system that places all recovery responsibility on federal disaster aid encourages risks and creates delays that become even more damaging when housing supply is already limited.
A better system would make those rules operational. States would keep stronger disaster reserves so recovery could start right away. Federal help would kick in automatically when damage passes certain limits. Timelines for action would be set ahead of time. Housing recovery would be a top priority, with faster permits and pre-approved rebuilding plans that don't require waiting for federal approval.
Housing recovery needs certainty and speed. The first weeks and months after a disaster determine whether a community can recover. If that time is spent waiting for federal approval, the long-term effects go far beyond the original damage.
The real problem is how the system is set up, not any one decision. Disaster recovery should follow clear, predictable rules instead of relying on individual judgment. Communities recover faster when decisions are made closer to the ground.
* * *
Christina Mojica is a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/disaster-recovery-should-not-be-complicated-by-politics/
Asia Foundation Co-Convenes Asia Symposium in Wellington on Regional Transition and Cooperation
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 23 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Asia Foundation Co-Convenes Asia Symposium in Wellington on Regional Transition and Cooperation
Wellington, May 21, 2026 - The Asia Foundation partnered with the Asia New Zealand Foundation Te Whitau Tuhono to convene Asia in Transition: The Middle Power Moment, a full-day symposium examining the forces shaping Asia and the growing role of small and middle powers in advancing regional stability, economic resilience, and cooperation.
More than 150 policymakers, business leaders, researchers, and regional
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 23 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The Asia Foundation Co-Convenes Asia Symposium in Wellington on Regional Transition and Cooperation
Wellington, May 21, 2026 - The Asia Foundation partnered with the Asia New Zealand Foundation Te Whitau Tuhono to convene Asia in Transition: The Middle Power Moment, a full-day symposium examining the forces shaping Asia and the growing role of small and middle powers in advancing regional stability, economic resilience, and cooperation.
More than 150 policymakers, business leaders, researchers, and regionalpractitioners gathered on May 20 for a series of timely foreign policy conversations focused on regional security, supply chain resilience, technological transformation, climate change, and the geopolitics of aid.
For The Asia Foundation, the partnership reflects a shared commitment to connecting grounded regional knowledge with decision-makers navigating a complex and rapidly changing landscape.
Asia New Zealand Foundation chief executive Suzannah Jessep said the symposium comes at a critical time for New Zealand's relationship with Asia.
"The Asia region is central to New Zealand's future, economically, strategically, and diplomatically. The symposium creates an important opportunity for New Zealand decision-makers to engage directly with experts from across Asia, helping to build the relationships and understanding needed to navigate a complex regional environment."
She added that partnering with The Asia Foundation brings deep regional insight and expands the networks and perspectives available to New Zealand audiences.
"Partnering on this symposium reflects our commitment to connecting on-the-ground knowledge with decision-makers who need it most," said Thomas Parks, vice president for strategic partnerships at The Asia Foundation. "We see this symposium as part of a longer-term effort to strengthen dialogue, relationships, and regional understanding between New Zealand and Asia."
From supply chain resilience and regional security to governance, economic transition, and geopolitics, these are issues The Asia Foundation's country offices and regional teams engage with every day through research, dialogue, partnerships, and policy-focused programming.
Anthea Mulakala, senior director at The Asia Foundation, shared regional perspectives on governance, development, and shifting geopolitical dynamics across Asia and the Pacific. Kathline Tolosa, director for governance and resilience in The Asia Foundation Philippines, discussed community resilience, democratic governance, and the importance of locally grounded approaches in responding to regional uncertainty. Todd Wassel, country representative in Thailand, contributed insights on regional cooperation, political transitions, and evolving economic and strategic relationships across Southeast Asia.
The event underscores The Asia Foundation's longstanding role as a bridge between local insight, regional expertise, and practical policy engagement across Asia and the Pacific.
* * *
Original text here: https://asiafoundation.org/the-asia-foundation-co-convenes-asia-symposium-in-wellington/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Curiosity Isn't Enough
DETROIT, Michigan, May 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by entrepreneur-in-residence Jennie Jones:
* * *
Curiosity Isn't Enough
But control isn't, either.
*
In a recent interview, David Bidler, founder of the non-profit Physiology First, asked an important question: Should our brains follow what they are interested in, or what we are told to pay attention to? One could argue that this is the central question that defines the variety of educational philosophies in our world today. It is essentially asking, "Who leads? The teacher or the student?"
I
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, May 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by entrepreneur-in-residence Jennie Jones:
* * *
Curiosity Isn't Enough
But control isn't, either.
*
In a recent interview, David Bidler, founder of the non-profit Physiology First, asked an important question: Should our brains follow what they are interested in, or what we are told to pay attention to? One could argue that this is the central question that defines the variety of educational philosophies in our world today. It is essentially asking, "Who leads? The teacher or the student?"
Istarted my agile learning community (a center for self-directed learning) two years ago, feeling pretty adamant that the answer to that question was the child. However, after four years of unschooling my own kids, and two years of running my community, I am convinced that this is a false dichotomy. The middle place I am trying to land is relationship-centered learning, where both the mentor and mentee's experience is valid and useful.
Four years ago, when I first told my kids that our new homeschool plan was to learn the things we are interested in, I envisioned that they would naturally get curious about things that fit into nice subject boxes like math, science, and reading--things that would look like my childhood school days. Instead, the question that came up right away was: "Does Minecraft 'count' as an interest?"
The kids didn't ask that question, but I did. Over and over. Should kids' brains really follow what they are interested in?
This is a centuries-old question, but asking it in our modern, attention-driven economy is perhaps more nuanced than it was for the pioneers of the child-led learning movement. Handing kids full autonomy to follow whatever captivates their interest now feels a bit like selling them to the loudest bidder.
I am not a neuroscientist, but I have read enough to understand a bit about how our brains, with their novelty-seeking reward pathways, are naturally drawn to engage with our digital devices. And sure, there is a lot we can discover and even "learn" on digital platforms. However, the skill of processing and assimilating that information into applicable uses in our lives is mostly an off-screen task requiring our higher-level thinking, focus, and sustained effort. I can't tell you how many amazing skills I have "learned" from Instagram that I still struggle to use--or even remember, for that matter.
One of the criticisms of traditional, teacher-led instruction is that kids are incentivized to memorize and regurgitate, making it difficult for deeper engagement, real-world application, and long-term retention. On the other end of the spectrum, allowing unfettered access to the Internet and calling it "educational" possibly gives kids a similar barrage of new (and often disjointed) information. It is interest-led and "self-directed" (although I would probably call it algorithm-directed), so kids appear engaged. But how much is retained? What part is applied? When the project is harder than the video looks, do we sustain effort long enough to troubleshoot, or do we just go back to scrolling for something else new and flashy? Do kids even try the experiment? After all, they just saw it unfold before their eyes in living color. And there's plenty more where that came from.
We live in the tension of two truths: Kids learn best when they can engage with something that interests them, and kids today are bombarded with constant digital novelty bidding for their attention.
I have found that while I believe strongly in giving kids space to explore their interests, my goals as an educator are twofold:
* I want kids who are capable of following their curiosity and sustaining attention and effort to get to the deeper levels of meaning or higher-level skills within their interests.
* I want to teach kids how to persevere when something stops being fun because they still want what is on the other side of the hard or the boring.
* In our attention economy, I really want kids to know how to direct their own attention. This requires getting clear about what they want, making some sort of plan to get there, and then maintaining focus long enough to follow through on the plan.
One thing I love to teach my kids is that good questions lead to better ones. If we stay stuck in the false dichotomy of teacher versus student, we miss the more important question: How do kids learn to direct and sustain their attention?
An algorithm keeps a child engaged--that's its goal. It can appear to be sustained attention. A mentor's goal is actually the opposite: to help the child no longer need them. So curiosity is not enough, but control isn't, either.
Curiosity is natural and easily led by the child. But focus and sustained effort are skills, and they don't develop on their own. They require supported practice in the right environment. Kids need someone who can ask good questions, model reflection, and help them break big ideas into manageable steps. Over time, when extended in a caring relationship, that external guidance becomes the internal voice of a self-directed learner. That is the relationship-centered dance led by a guide who knows when to lead and when to follow.
* * *
Jennie Jones is an Entrepreneur-In-Residence in FEE. She is former professional ballerina, turned homeschooling mom of four, turned education entrepreneur. She runs the Treehouse Agile Learning Community in St. George, Utah. A home-based microschool that uses agile learning tools to foster intentional community, natural learning, and independence, The Treehouse currently serves homeschooled students ages 5-12.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/curiosity-isnt-enough/
Breakthrough T1D Supports Bipartisan SCREEN for T1D Act Introduced by U.S. Representatives Schrier and Joyce and Senators Shaheen and Collins
NEW YORK, May 22 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release:
* * *
Breakthrough T1D Supports Bipartisan SCREEN for T1D Act Introduced by U.S. Representatives Schrier and Joyce and Senators Shaheen and Collins
*
Breakthrough T1D applauds Representatives Kim Schrier (D-WA) and John Joyce (R-PA) and Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME) for introducing the Strengthening Collective Resources for Encouraging Education Needed (SCREEN) for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Act of 2026. The bipartisan legislation
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 22 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release:
* * *
Breakthrough T1D Supports Bipartisan SCREEN for T1D Act Introduced by U.S. Representatives Schrier and Joyce and Senators Shaheen and Collins
*
Breakthrough T1D applauds Representatives Kim Schrier (D-WA) and John Joyce (R-PA) and Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME) for introducing the Strengthening Collective Resources for Encouraging Education Needed (SCREEN) for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Act of 2026. The bipartisan legislationaims to increase awareness and improve screening and early detection of T1D.
The SCREEN for T1D Act would direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a national education campaign to highlight the benefits of T1D screening, early detection, and disease management. The bill also would ensure that evidence-based educational resources on T1D screening are shared with state and local health departments, schools, primary and pediatric care providers, and community health centers.
Screening and early detection of T1D can save lives, help people make important decisions about their health, and potentially change the course of the disease. Too often, children and adults are diagnosed only after becoming critically ill. Screening for T1D can be done through a simple blood test, and ongoing monitoring can help families avoid medical emergencies and take action sooner. In addition, following the FDA's recent approval of Tzield for use in children as young as one year old to delay the onset of T1D, even more families stand to benefit from early screening-further increasing the urgency of this legislation.
"Breakthrough T1D applauds Representatives Schrier and Joyce and Senators Shaheen and Collins for introducing the SCREEN for Type 1 Diabetes Act, a bipartisan bill to promote awareness and early detection for type 1 diabetes," said Lynn Starr, Breakthrough T1D's Chief Global Advocacy Officer. "Too many people first learn of a T1D diagnosis in the emergency room during a medical crisis. Screening and early detection can change that by reducing the risk of life-threatening complications, giving individuals and families valuable time to prepare, and connecting them to clinical trials and therapies that may delay disease onset. As we continue advancing toward prevention and cures, we must ensure that families across the country can easily access screening and have the tools and information needed to respond."
Breakthrough T1D will continue to work with lawmakers to advance this important legislation and ensure families nationwide have access to timely information and early detection tools.
More information about screening and early detection can be found at www.breakthrought1d.org/early-detection.
***
Original text here: https://www.breakthrought1d.org/for-the-media/press-releases/breakthrough-t1d-supports-bipartisan-screen-for-t1d-act-introduced-by-u-s-representatives-schrier-and-joyce-and-senators-shaheen-and-collins/
Schwab Investors Controlling $4.3 Trillion Demand Answers re: DAF Funding Prohibition
OAKLAND, California, May 21 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Schwab Investors Controlling $4.3 Trillion Demand Answers re: DAF Funding Prohibition
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, 310.730.9407
Sign-On Letter Delivered to Schwab CEO and Investor Relations Before Annual General Meeting; Shareholders Press Board on Unilateral Donor Advised Funds Policy Change
EL CERRITO, CA, May 21, 2026 - As Charles Schwab Corporation convened its 2026 Annual General Meeting today, a coalition of investors representing more than $4.3 trillion in assets delivered
... Show Full Article
OAKLAND, California, May 21 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Schwab Investors Controlling $4.3 Trillion Demand Answers re: DAF Funding Prohibition
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, 310.730.9407
Sign-On Letter Delivered to Schwab CEO and Investor Relations Before Annual General Meeting; Shareholders Press Board on Unilateral Donor Advised Funds Policy Change
EL CERRITO, CA, May 21, 2026 - As Charles Schwab Corporation convened its 2026 Annual General Meeting today, a coalition of investors representing more than $4.3 trillion in assets delivereda sharp rebuke to the firm's leadership over its abrupt decision (coordinated in apparent lockstep with Vanguard and Fidelity) to stop honoring DAF client funding directions for donations to Southern Poverty Law Center, currently a 501c3 non-profit organization in good standing. This abrupt change occurred after the recent indictment by the Trump DOJ for charges that appear to be politically motivated.
The sign-on letter was transmitted directly to Schwab's Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Secretary, and Investor Relations on May 20th, one day before the AGM, demanding transparency and accountability from executives and a board that has so far offered only a legal technicality in response.
Donor-Advised Funds are widely used by philanthropically minded investors to manage charitable giving with tax efficiency. Clients contribute assets, receive an immediate tax deduction, and rely on fund administrators like Schwab to execute grant recommendations to IRS approved nonprofits of their choosing. When Schwab's DAFgiving360, Vanguard Charitable, and Fidelity Charitable each announced (within hours of one another)that they would no longer follow client directions to certain organizations, the move struck thousands of account holders as a unilateral breach of the foundational promise of how those accounts were sold.
"When investors put money in a donor advised fund, they want their funding directives to be followed. Schwab, Vanguard, and Fidelity have breached this trust, limiting their clients' giving in what appears to be a coordinated action," said Andrew Behar, CEO, As You Sow. "Everyone should have a financial manager that they can trust to execute their decisions."
At today's AGM, shareholders submitted pointed questions designed to determine whether this Schwab DAFgiving360 decision was made unilaterally or whether Schwab was approached by outside interests, whether the board was consulted and approved of the decision to prohibit funding to the group, and whether the timing of the near-simultaneous announcements by all three firms reflects any form of coordination.
Schwab management has thus far responded to shareholder concerns by characterizing DAFgiving360 as a legally separate entity-a response that investors and analysts have widely dismissed as evasive. The corporate separation argument does not address the substantive governance questions: who approved this policy, on what legal or ethical basis was it implemented, and why did three major DAF sponsors align simultaneously without prior client notification.
The financial stakes are considerable. According to DAF Research Collaborative, DAF accounts represent over $327 billion in assets and made over $64 billion in charitable giving in 2025. This is a significant and growing segment of philanthropic capital in the United States, and Schwab, Fidelity, and Vanguard collectively administer a dominant share of assets among 1,512 sponsors.
Institutional investors in the sign-on letter and hundreds of DAF holders who signed another letter put forth by Democracy Alliance, warn that Schwab's reputational exposure is material: clients who feel their giving autonomy has been compromised have many alternatives, and account migration risk is real. Several DAF account holders have already indicated they are evaluating independent community foundation sponsors and single-purpose DAF platforms that operate without the same conflicts of interest. An online workshop on how to move your DAF to another sponsor was held on May 14th and was attended by over 200 DAF holders. The website FreeYourDAF was also launched to assist the shift of capital that is now under way.
The investor coalition is calling on Schwab's board to publicly disclose the deliberative record underlying DAFgiving360's policy change, confirm whether any inter-institutional communications preceded the announcement, and articulate whether the board intends to restore client funding direction rights or establish a clear, viewpoint-neutral standard for any future restrictions. Shareholders will be watching closely to determine whether management chooses to engage substantively with these governance questions or deflect once again.
About As You Sow
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30-year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. Its focus areas include climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, the Rights of Nature, racial justice, and workplace diversity. Click here to view As You Sow's shareholder resolution tracker.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/5/20/investors-controlling-44-trillion-demand-answers-at-schwab-agm-over-donor-advised-fund-funding-restrictionsnbsp
OMRF Board welcomes new directors, recognizes scientists
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, May 21 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF Board welcomes new directors, recognizes scientists
*
At its spring Board meeting and honors celebration on May 20, the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation welcomed two new Directors and recognized scientists for their work.
Additionally, OMRF President Andrew Weyrich, Ph.D., honored a retiring school superintendent for his district's longtime support of OMRF.
The new OMRF Board members are Gary Brooks of Oklahoma City and Dori Smith of Duncan.
Brooks is a commercial real
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, May 21 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF Board welcomes new directors, recognizes scientists
*
At its spring Board meeting and honors celebration on May 20, the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation welcomed two new Directors and recognized scientists for their work.
Additionally, OMRF President Andrew Weyrich, Ph.D., honored a retiring school superintendent for his district's longtime support of OMRF.
The new OMRF Board members are Gary Brooks of Oklahoma City and Dori Smith of Duncan.
Brooks is a commercial realestate developer whose work includes the restoration of the downtown First National Center.
"My understanding of OMRF and its mission became much more intimate through my passion project of helping Oklahoma City become one of the healthiest cities in the nation," Brooks said. "That passion aligns perfectly with the goals of OMRF's healthy-aging research."
Smith is chief executive officer of Inland Empire Tech Center, a real estate investment company. She also is president of the H.M. Lewis Medical Research Foundation, which has provided significant philanthropic support to OMRF.
"The ability to serve OMRF, where research and clinical applications can move directly to the patient, is both exciting and deeply rewarding," Smith said. "I have worked with other research institutions where that has not been the case, which makes this opportunity especially meaningful to me."
Also rejoining the Board is Gary Pierson, who previously served from 2004 to 2019. Pierson, an attorney, served as president and chief executive officer of OPUBCO.
The Board gave its Distinguished Service Award to Harrison Levy, an OMRF Director since 1995. Earlier this year, Levy's $1 million gift established the Levy and Ray Family Laboratory for Alzheimer's Research at OMRF.
In addition, the Board honored the following Directors for their service: Dee Replogle, 50 years; Barbara Braught, 30 years; and Virginia Groendyke, 25 years.
OMRF presented the following awards to foundation scientists:
* Fred Jones Award for Scientific Achievement: Jacquelyn Gorman, Ph.D.
* J. Donald & Patricia H. Capra Award for Scientific Achievement: Tommy Lewis Jr., Ph.D.
* Merrick Award for Outstanding Medical Research: Courtney Montgomery, Ph.D.
* Stephen M. Prescott Award for the Best and Brightest David Hughes, Ph.D., and Amanda Sharpe, Ph.D.
* Edward L. & Thelma Gaylord prize for Scientific Excellence: Michael Beckstead, Ph.D.
Weyrich presented the President's Award to Dr. Fred Rhodes, who is retiring after a 50-year career in public education, primarily in the Putnam City School District. Since 2013 he has served as its superintendent.
OMRF's partnership with Putnam City Schools dates to 1975, when the district designated the foundation as beneficiary of its annual cancer drive. Since then, the effort has raised $4 million for research at OMRF. That research has led, among other things, to an experimental brain cancer drug now undergoing clinical trials.
"Dr. Rhodes has been an amazing advocate for biomedical research at OMRF that advances human health," Weyrich said. "We are extremely grateful to him and to everyone from the Putnam City district who has supported our efforts to make meaningful progress in the fight against cancer and other chronic diseases."
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/omrf-board-welcomes-new-directors-recognizes-scientists/
FFRF Supports AZ Students Protesting School-Sponsored Prayer
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 21 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF supports AZ students protesting school-sponsored prayer
Students at El Capitan High School in Colorado City, Ariz., are protesting school-sponsored prayer that district officials are still scheduling in the graduation ceremony despite student objections and constitutional dictates.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has told the Colorado City Unified School District to immediately remove prayer from the school's June 3 graduation ceremony after the school received complaints from
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 21 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF supports AZ students protesting school-sponsored prayer
Students at El Capitan High School in Colorado City, Ariz., are protesting school-sponsored prayer that district officials are still scheduling in the graduation ceremony despite student objections and constitutional dictates.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has told the Colorado City Unified School District to immediately remove prayer from the school's June 3 graduation ceremony after the school received complaints fromgraduating seniors who say administrators are attempting to force religion into what should be a celebration of students' achievements. According to the student complaint received by FFRF, El Capitan High School has long included official invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies, with students selected in advance to lead the audience in prayer. This year's graduation program was set to feature scheduled prayers led by two designated students despite clear Supreme Court precedent ruling such practices unconstitutional.
After student objections, district officials reportedly altered the program so that the prayer would occur before the ceremony officially begins and described participation as "optional." But the change misses the point.
"El Capitan High School's custom and practice of including school-sponsored prayers at graduation directly violates students' First Amendment rights," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence writes. "The school cannot avoid a constitutional violation by assigning students to lead prayers, moving the prayer to the top of the ceremony, or proclaiming that the prayer is no longer mandatory."
As the school board itself has noted, the ceremony is under the school's control. A public school cannot constitutionally implement religious worship as part of a school activity.
High school graduation is a once-in-a-lifetime event that students spend over a decade working toward. As FFRF's student-complainant explained, the school forcing prayer on graduating students has caused the students "frustration" instead of allowing them to focus on their achievements. Including prayer at graduation puts many students and families in the unconscionable and unconstitutional position of choosing between exiting or foregoing the ceremony or else violating their conscience.
Plus, having prayer at graduation ceremonies and other school-sponsored events needlessly marginalizes students and families who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. As many as 29 percent of Americans are non-Christian, including the almost 30 percent that are nonreligious. (Arizona even has slightly higher than average numbers of religiously unaffiliated adults at 31 percent.) More than half of Generation Z members (those born after 1996) are non-Christian, including 43 percent who are nonreligious.
"Students deserve to celebrate their achievements that came from hard work -- not be forced to show obeisance to someone else's religion," FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. "We expect this rogue school district to stop violating the constitutional rights of its students by canceling these prayers immediately."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,000 members and a chapter in Arizona. Its purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-supports-az-students-protesting-school-sponsored-prayer/
[Category: Religion]
