By Petra Regeni and Claudia Wallner

RUSI and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) Germany convened a closed-door roundtable event in Berlin on 31 March 2025 to discuss online hate speech and discrimination in Europe in the age of AI. The roundtable included presentations across three sessions (corresponding with the sections of this paper) and participants from academia, civil society, advocacy groups, legal non-profit organisations and the private sector. The event provided a space to discuss online hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric – ranging from antisemitism, misogyny and anti-LGBTQI+ narratives to racism and xenophobia – as well as the implications of AI in their spread and amplification. Discussions centred around the complexities introduced by AI-generated and targeted hate speech, and explored potential responses, from regulatory measures and content moderation to educational initiatives promoting critical thinking skills. This conference report summarises key themes and points raised during the roundtable, none of which are attributable to individual participants and presenters.

Conference Report

London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), 2025, 13p.

By Albert Kales (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Albert M. Kales’s Unpopular Government in the United States, published in 1914, is a searching and often unsettling examination of the American democratic system at a time when the country was undergoing profound political and social transformation. Kales, a legal scholar and reform advocate, wrote during the Progressive Era—a period marked by widespread concern over corruption, inefficiency, and the growing disconnect between the ideals of democracy and the realities of governance. His book is not a polemic but a carefully reasoned argument that seeks to understand why a government founded on popular sovereignty could become so alienated from the people it purports to serve. An important aspect of Kales’s reform agenda is his emphasis on civic education. He believes that a more informed electorate is essential to the health of democracy and calls for greater efforts to educate citizens about the workings of government and the responsibilities of citizenship. He also supports mechanisms such as the initiative and referendum, which allow citizens to bypass legislatures and enact laws directly, though he cautions that these tools must be used judiciously to avoid further complicating the political process.

Although Kales’s book did not become a staple of political science curricula, it has been periodically rediscovered by scholars interested in the history of democratic theory, administrative reform, and the Progressive movement. His insights into voter disengagement and the structural barriers to meaningful democratic participation have gained renewed relevance in contemporary discussions about democratic backsliding, political polarization, and the role of technocracy in modern governance. However, many of Kales’s core ideas continue to resonate in modern political systems, particularly in debates about democratic participation, judicial independence, and the role of expertise in governance.

By August Bebel (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

August Bebel’s Woman and Socialism is one of the most influential and enduring works in the history of socialist and feminist thought. First published in 1879 as Die Frau und der Sozialismus, the book represents a groundbreaking synthesis of Marxist theory and the struggle for women’s emancipation. Bebel, a co-founder of the German Social Democratic Party and a leading figure in the international socialist movement, sought to demonstrate that the liberation of women was not only compatible with socialism but essential to its realization. His work remains a foundational text for understanding the intersection of class and gender oppression, and it continues to resonate in contemporary debates about equality, labor, and social justice.

Woman and Socialism is not merely a critique; it is also a vision of transformation. Bebel outlines how a socialist society would fundamentally alter the conditions of women’s lives. In such a society, he argues, the means of production would be collectively owned, and both men and women would participate equally in productive labor. The state would assume responsibility for many of the functions traditionally relegated to women—such as childcare, education, and elder care—thus freeing women from the confines of domestic servitude. Marriage would become a voluntary and egalitarian union, based on mutual affection rather than economic necessity.

Bebel’s work is notable for its breadth and depth. He addresses a wide range of issues, including education, reproductive rights, prostitution, and the role of women in political movements. He also engages with contemporary debates within the socialist movement, challenging those who viewed the “woman question” as secondary or divisive. For Bebel, the emancipation of women is not a peripheral concern but a central pillar of socialist theory and practice. He argues that a society cannot be truly free or just if half its population remains oppressed. Bebel explores a wide range of themes that connect the struggle for women’s emancipation with the broader goals of socialism.

Bebel’s introduction itself serves as both a historical overview and a political manifesto. It invites readers to reconsider the roots of gender inequality and to imagine a future in which social and economic structures support, rather than hinder, human flourishing. Bebel’s synthesis of feminism and socialism was ahead of its time, and his insistence on the inseparability of class and gender struggles remains a powerful and relevant message. His work continues to inspire activists, scholars, and readers committed to building a more equitable world.

There are a number of editions and translations each edition slightly different. For example, sometime the title is written as Woman Under Socialism. The extensive use of tables of statistics also varies form one edition to another. This edition has been reformatted, designed, abridged and annotated with an Introduction by renowned novelist and story writer Colin Heston to remove errors and other distracting content that occurred in the original edition, making the book more accessible for the present day reader.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 359p.

By Allan L. Benson (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Allan L. Benson’s The Truth About Socialism is a bold and impassioned political manifesto that seeks to demystify socialism for the American public and to present it not as a foreign ideology or a utopian dream, but as a practical and necessary response to the injustices of early 20th-century capitalism. Written during a time of profound economic inequality, labor unrest, and political disillusionment, the book is both a critique of the existing capitalist order and a call to action for working-class Americans to reclaim their rightful share of the nation’s wealth and power. Benson is particularly effective in dismantling the myths and fears surrounding socialism. He anticipates the objections of his critics—those who equate socialism with tyranny, inefficiency, or the loss of individual freedom—and responds with clarity and conviction. He argues that true freedom cannot exist in a society where economic survival depends on the whims of employers and where political power is bought and sold by the wealthy. For Benson, socialism is not the enemy of liberty but its fulfillment: a system in which all people have the material security and democratic voice necessary to live freely and fully.

Benson's introduction to The Truth About Socialism sets the stage for a powerful and accessible exploration of socialist principles. It combines moral passion with analytical rigor, historical insight with political urgency. Benson’s work remains a compelling document of its time, reflecting the hopes and struggles of a generation seeking to build a more just and equitable society. It also continues to resonate today, as debates over inequality, labor rights, and the role of government in the economy remain as vital as ever.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 132p.

By William English Walling (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

William English Walling’s The Socialists and the War: A Documentary Statement of the Position of the Socialists of All Countries; With Special Reference to Their Peace Policy is a powerful and timely compilation that captures the ideological and political turmoil that gripped the international socialist movement during the First World War. Published in 1915, at the height of the global conflict, the book serves as both a historical record and a moral inquiry into how socialist parties and leaders across nations responded to the unprecedented crisis of global warfare. Walling, a prominent American socialist and journalist, undertakes the ambitious task of documenting the fractured responses of socialist organizations to the war, revealing both the strength and the fragility of international solidarity in the face of nationalism and militarism.
The introduction to this volume sets the tone for a work that is as much about disillusionment as it is about documentation. Walling begins by acknowledging the deep betrayal felt by many socialists when the war broke out and major socialist parties—particularly in Germany, France, and Britain—chose to support their respective national war efforts. This decision, in many cases, ran counter to the long-standing commitments of the Second International, which had pledged to oppose imperialist wars and to promote working-class unity across national borders. Walling does not shy away from the painful truth: that the war exposed the limits of internationalism and revealed the powerful grip of nationalism even within movements that had long claimed to transcend it.
A central theme of the book is the tension between socialist ideals and national loyalties. Walling presents a wide array of primary documents—speeches, party resolutions, manifestos, and editorials—that illustrate how socialist leaders justified their support for or opposition to the war. Some, like the German Social Democrats, argued that they were defending their nation against aggression; others, like the Russian Bolsheviks and a minority of Western European socialists, condemned the war as a capitalist enterprise and called for revolutionary opposition. Walling’s editorial voice is present throughout, guiding the reader through these conflicting positions and offering critical commentary on their implications.
Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 523p.

By William English Walling (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

William English Walling’s Socialism As It Is: A Survey of the World-Wide Revolutionary Movement is a landmark work in early 20th-century political thought, offering a penetrating and pragmatic analysis of the global socialist movement at a time when it was rapidly gaining momentum. Published in 1912, the book stands apart from many contemporary treatments of socialism by refusing to rely solely on abstract theory or ideological polemic. Instead, Walling grounds his analysis in the lived realities, organizational structures, and political strategies of socialist parties and labor movements across the world. His goal is not to speculate on what socialism might become, but to examine what socialism already is—how it functions, how it evolves, and how it interacts with the broader forces of capitalism, democracy, and industrial society.
From the outset, Walling makes clear that his focus is on the practical socialism of organized movements, not the utopian visions or doctrinal purity of theorists. He critiques both the uncritical idealism of some socialist writers and the dismissive caricatures offered by opponents of socialism. Instead, he insists that socialism must be understood through its actions—through the decisions made in party congresses, the resolutions passed by labor unions, and the policies pursued by socialist representatives in parliaments and municipalities. This empirical approach allows Walling to present socialism not as a monolith, but as a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon, shaped by national contexts, historical contingencies, and internal debates.
Ultimately, Socialism As It Is is a work of both scholarship and advocacy. Walling writes with the conviction that socialism is not only a viable political force but a necessary one, capable of addressing the deep inequalities and instabilities of modern industrial society. Yet he is also clear-eyed about the challenges the movement faces—from internal divisions to external repression, from ideological rigidity to political compromise. His introduction sets the tone for a book that is both analytical and engaged, offering readers a nuanced and grounded understanding of socialism not as a distant ideal, but as a living, evolving force in the world.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 361p.

Edited by Stefanie Ullmann and Marcus Tomalin

This volume looks at the forms and functions of counterspeech as well as what determines its effectiveness and success from multidisciplinary perspectives. Counterspeech is in line with international human rights and freedom of speech, and it can be a much more powerful tool against dangerous and toxic speech than blocking and censorship. In the face of online hate speech and disinformation, counterspeech is a tremendously important and timely topic. The book uniquely brings together expertise from a variety of disciplines. It explores linguistic, ethical and legal aspects of counterspeech, looks at the functions and effectiveness of counterspeech from anthropological, practical and sociological perspectives and addresses the question of how we can use modern technological advances to make counterspeech a more instantaneous and efficient option to respond to harmful language online. The greatest benefit of counterspeech lies in the ability to reach bystanders and prevent them from becoming perpetrators themselves. This volume is an excellent opportunity to spread the word about counterspeech, its potential, importance, and future endeavors. This anthology is a great resource for scholars and students of linguistics, philosophy of language, media and communication studies, digital humanities, natural language processing, international human rights law, anthropology and sociology, and interdisciplinary research methods. It is also a valuable source of information for practitioners and anyone who wants to speak up against harmful speech.

Oxford; New York: Routledge, 2023. 225p.

Edited by Nelson Ribeiro and Barbie Zelizer

A critical and timely collection that argues for the centrality of propaganda in discussions about the contemporary media landscape and its informational ecosystems. This book explores how “propaganda,” a foundational concept within media and communication studies, has recently been replaced by alternative terms (disinformation, misinformation, and fake news) that fail to capture the continuities and disruptions of ongoing strategic attempts to (mis)guide public opinion. Edited by Nelson Ribeiro and Barbie Zelizer, the collection highlights how these concepts must be understood as part of a long legacy of propaganda and not just as new phenomena that have emerged in the context of the digital media environment. Chapters explore the strategies and effects of propaganda through a variety of globally diverse case studies, featuring both democracies and autocratic regimes, and highlight how only by understanding propagandistic forms and strategies can we fully begin to understand how public opinion is being molded today by those who resort to deception and falsehood to gain or keep hold of power. An important resource for students and scholars of media and communication studies and those who are studying and/or researching media and propaganda, media and power, disinformation, fake news, and political communication.

Oxford, UK: New York: Routledge, 2025. 214p.

By CM Fombad

This is the fourth volume in a series which is based on the Stellenbosch Annual Seminar on Constitutional Law in Africa (SASCA). The aim is to focus on an issue of critical constitutional importance to Africa in its ongoing development of governance founded on constitutionalism and democracy. And that issue is indeed critical. There can be little doubt that the endemic corruption that has spread into every aspect of social, economic, and political life is at the heart of the crisis of constitutionalism in Africa. The only surprise is that it is not until recently that the severity of the problem has attracted the attention it warrants. Most anti-corruption measures over the years have been inadequate, serving merely as symbolic gestures. The African Union’s declaration of 2018 as the ‘African anti-corruption year’, albeit belated, is an open recognition by African governments of the impact corruption will have on the continent unless urgent steps are taken. The key objective of this book is to draw attention to the problem of corruption and the need for remedial action. The complexity of the situation, with all its multi-faceted dimensions, cannot fully be explored in a single work. Nevertheless, the intention to put this matter on the agenda when it was discussed at the 2017 SASCA seminar seems to have worked in that, as noted, the African Union not only declared 2018 a year to combat corruption but also set aside 11 July of every year as an ‘Africa anti-corruption day’.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. 563p.

By Adam Feltz and Edward T. Cokely

How should you live your life? Considering a wide range of possible per- spectives, decision theory offers a simple prescription: Just make decisions that get you more of what you should want. It’s a very straightforward recommendation. Nevertheless, it’s hard to overstate the transformative influence of decision theory and its components, including probability theory and statistics. It seems likely that nearly every living person has felt decision theory’s influence in many ways (e.g., it is an essential foundation of modern science and engineering). And with each passing day the influ- ence of decision theory seems to be accelerating thanks to increases in knowledge, connectivity, and computing power. Yet despite its growing impact, decision theory cannot tell us what decision we should make unless we know what we should want, or more precisely what we should value.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature

Switzerland AG. 300p.

By Richard J. Cebula, Department of Economics and Center for the Study of Public

Choice, George Mason University

Persistent homelessness is present across a variety of nations. These include such politically and economically diverse nations as the UK (Bramley and Fitzpatrick, 2018), US (Early, 2005; Fargo et al, 2013; Corinth and Lucas, 2018; Glynn and Fox, 2019), Spain (Cabrera and Garcia- Perez, 2020), and Australia (Cobb and Zhu, 2017). Not surprisingly, in response, there has appeared an impressive body of research literature seeking to identify factors that systemat- ically influence this phenomenon. Such studies, especially for the US, focus on a variety of explanatory variables. Among these variables, educational attainment, income, warmer cli- mate, the cost of housing/rent levels (Grimes and Chressanthis, 1997; Quigley et al, 2001) and the overall cost of living (Cebula and Alexande

Academia Letters, July 2021, 7p.

By Carmine Conte

Migration Policy Group (MPG) has released a groundbreaking report that exposes the pervasive, yet often overlooked, forms of racism embedded within the structures of society across eight EU member states: Czechia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, and Sweden. This research was conducted thanks to the Robert Bosch Stiftung’s support. The report reveals how structural and institutional racism systematically disadvantages specific communities, operating within social, economic, and political institutions.

Unlike overt acts of racial violence, structural racism is entrenched in sectors like housing, education, healthcare, employment, policing, and justice. It manifests through seemingly neutral policies and practices that disproportionately impact racial and ethnic groups, perpetuating inequality and marginalisation.

“Addressing structural and institutional racism is crucial for creating a more just and equitable society,” said Isabelle Chopin, Director of MPG. “This requires concerted efforts at both national and European levels to dismantle the systems that sustain racial inequality.”

MPG, a leading advocate for racial equality since the 1990s, has significantly influenced European policy, including the adoption of the Racial and Employment Equality Directives in 2000. The organisation has also provided extensive training and published significant research on racial discrimination.

The new report, part of a broader project led by MPG, offers a comparative analysis of structural racism in the eight examined countries. Despite the absence of explicit legal definitions, EU law mandates protection against racial discrimination. However, many national legal frameworks adopt a “colour-blind” approach, complicating efforts to address systemic issues.

The report highlights how structural racism disproportionately affects Roma, Black people, Muslims, and, in Sweden, the Sámi population. It also underscores challenges such as racial profiling, excessive use of force by law enforcement, and the underreporting of racism against Asians and antisemitism.

Structural racism is particularly evident in the justice system, healthcare, education, employment, and housing, with far-reaching impacts on the lives of racialised groups. The report also points to more subtle forms of racism, including online hate speech, prejudice, and denial of access to services.

While the EU’s Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025 acknowledges structural racism, the report notes that most countries still view racism as isolated incidents rather than a systemic problem.

MPG calls for urgent action at both national and European levels to dismantle the structures that perpetuate racial inequality and to empower historically marginalised communities.

Brussels: Migration Policy Group, 2024. 103p.

By András Kádár

The report, authored by András Kádár and coordinated by MPG, for the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, reveals widespread anti-Muslim discrimination and bias, highlighting critical gaps in legal protections and enforcement. Despite existing frameworks, many Muslims and individuals perceived to be Muslim face systemic barriers and societal prejudice across key areas of life.

Key findings include:

Employment: Nearly one-third of Muslim respondents reported experiencing discrimination during their job search.

Harassment: One in four faced harassment linked to their ethnic or immigrant background.

Access to Housing and Healthcare: Half of the respondents encountered discrimination based on their names, skin colour, or physical appearance.

The report also highlights a surge in anti-Muslim hate following the October 2023 attacks, with entire communities targeted by harmful stereotypes and divisive rhetoric. Structural challenges, such as underreporting and the normalisation of bias in public discourse, further hinder progress.

The report calls on policymakers and institutions to:

Address enforcement gaps in anti-discrimination laws.

Provide robust support mechanisms for victims of discrimination.

Challenge anti-Muslim rhetoric at every level of society.

This report reinforces MPG’s commitment to advancing evidence-based strategies for equality and inclusion.

The time to act is now. Together, we can build societies where diversity is celebrated, and everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

As the European Union’s anti-racism action plan for 2020-20251 (EU anti-racism action plan) emphasises, ‘[r]acism damages society in many different ways. Most directly, it means that a large number of people living in Europe face discrimination, affecting their human dignity, their life opportunities, their prosperity and their well-being, and often also their personal safety.’2 This predicament described by the action plan is the everyday reality of many Muslims and persons perceived to be Muslims across Europe. The persistence of anti-Muslim sentiment in a number of European societies and the widespread discrimination against members of the Muslim community are strongly substantiated by sociological research. Nearly one-third of the Muslim respondents to the second European Union minorities and discrimination survey (EU-MIDIS II survey) carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2017 indicated that they had suffered discrimination when looking for a job; one in four Muslim respondents reported harassment due to their ethnic or immigrant background, while their names, skin colour or physical appearance prompted discrimination against about half of the respondents when they were looking for housing or a job, or were receiving healthcare.3 The FRA’s 2019 fundamental rights survey showed that 32 % of the more than 28 000 respondents would feel uncomfortable about having a neighbour who is Muslim; 41 % would not feel comfortable with a family member of theirs marrying a Muslim person; and 31 % were of the view that it would be acceptable for a shop not to hire a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf because of concerns about how some customers might react.4 The 2023 Eurobarometer survey on discrimination in the European Union5 also confirmed the existence of antiMuslim bias, although it was conducted before the attack of 7 October 2023, which has resulted in a surge of anti-Muslim hate speech on the internet, and intensified racism, intolerance and discrimination against Muslim people in several European countries. As the 2023 annual report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) concludes: ‘the number of hate incidents against Muslims […] increased manifold in the aftermath of the attack. Muslims received blame for the attack and other attacks in the Middle East, based on stereotyping of whole communities and their perceived connections with the use of violence.’6 Similar trends have been reported for the purposes of the present study in countries including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Sweden. In this situation, joint European efforts to combat anti-Muslim hate are gaining increased importance. The European Union has not only adopted policies and commitments with a view to combating racial and/or religious hatred, including anti-Muslim hate, but has also put in place numerous legal instruments that can be used to counter different manifestations of anti-Muslim bias, including but not limited to the Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia,7 the Racial Equality Directive,8 the Employment Equality Directive,9 the Victims’ Rights Directive,10 the Audiovisual Media Services Directive,11 and the Digital Services Act.12 In the EU anti-racism action plan, the European Commission encourages the Member States to ensure that they fully transpose and properly apply these pieces of EU law designed to provide protection against racism. In line with this call, this thematic report provides a comparative overview of how these legal instruments have been complied with in the 27 EU Member States, and aims to establish how and to what extent the legal framework and its practical application in the different Member States provide protection against anti-Muslim hate in three main areas: (i) non-discrimination; (i) hate crimes; and (iii) hate speech. It identifies gaps in the existing legal protections and/or their enforcement across the EU Member States and makes recommendations on mechanisms for the provision of effective protection against acts motivated by anti-Muslim hate. Important trends in anti-Muslim hate The research conducted for the purposes of this report has identified some overarching and strongly interlinked trends in anti-Muslim hate across Europe: the ‘racialisation’ of Muslims; the structural nature of anti-Muslim discrimination; the appearance of anti-Muslim hate in the political mainstream; and the enormous degree of underreporting of anti-Muslim incidents. As described in ECRI’s General Policy Recommendation No. 5 on preventing and combating anti-Muslim racism and discrimination, anti-Muslim discrimination is structural, because it ‘does not solely manifest in instances of interpersonal hostility or discrimination’, but ‘is woven into the ways our societies function, and operates through norms, routines, patterns of attitudes and behaviour that create obstacles in achieving […] effective equality’. The document also points to the ‘racialisation’ of Muslims, i.e. the process by which certain groups of society (identified by, for example, phenotype or cultural identifiers) are ascribed ‘certain […] attributes that are presented as being innate to all members’ of that group. ‘[O]nce identified or perceived as a member of a group, one is deemed as embodying characteristics based on, for instance, skin colour, ethnic or national origin or religion inherent to all members of that group. This process is […] turning a diverse set of people into an allegedly homogeneous group, whose members are presented as “Other”.’13 The main challenges in tackling anti-Muslim hatred are strongly linked to these two specific, and also interconnected, phenomena: the racialisation of Muslims paves the way to falsely presenting and stigmatising them as a homogeneous, monolithic block posing threats to European values and security, which greatly contributes to the success of populist political forces using fear, anger and anxiety as key elements of their strategy to enter the political mainstream. It also reinforces the structural nature of anti-Muslim discrimination, which in turn has a devastating impact on, among others, Muslim communities’ trust in the legal and institutional system that should be protecting them, leading almost directly to the unsettling extent of underreporting of instances of anti-Muslim hate and discrimination.

Brussels: EUROPEAN COMMISSION , 2024. 156p.

By Robert A. Pape

Many urgent questions face college campuses in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza, which kicked-off numerous student-led pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protests, intimidation, and violence. In response, the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago (CPOST) conducted a study of the national campus environment. Based on two national surveys of 5,000 college students from over 600 four-year academic institutions, with an additional 5,000 American adults as a comparison set, which were fielded from mid-December 2023 to mid-January 2024, and with the benefit of a previous baseline survey of 8,000 American adults fielded in Spring of 2023, this study provides the most extensive survey evidence today about the extent of campus fears and changes in antisemitism after October 7. This study is also among the few efforts to disentangle different meanings of antisemitism and compare antisemitism and Islamophobia among respondents.

The overarching finding is that campus fears related to the current Israel-Palestinian conflict are more intense among certain groups and widespread across the student body than previously known. As a consequence of the conflict, numerous students are fearful because of their support of one side or the other:

56% of Jewish college students felt in personal danger

52% of Muslim college students felt in personal danger

16% of other college students felt in personal danger

This equates to 2 to 3 million college students.

The findings also show that Jewish and Muslim students report fearing for their physical safety, and other students fear being caught in the crossfire. Many are additionally concerned about academic discrimination and loss of professional opportunities.

Different perceptions of intent are likely contributing to these fears. 66% of Jewish college students understand the pro-Palestinian protest chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” to mean the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews, while only 14% of Muslim students understand the chant that way; of Jewish students who understand the phrase this way, 62% report feeling afraid. About 10% of college students would permit student groups to call for genocide against Jews, and 13% of college students say that when Jews are attacked, it is because they deserve it. When these same questions are asked about Muslims, we find the same percentages: 10% and 13%.

Campus fears are occurring in a national climate of increasing antisemitism: violent antisemitism has increased 13% nationally since Spring 2023, when CPOST conducted its previous probe of antisemitism.

The findings are concerning. College students of various backgrounds feel personally unsafe on college campuses, and there is a disturbing trend toward greater acceptance of violence, even calls for genocide, than befits the mission of the university to enable all students to flourish.

This study provides extensive information to help university and national leaders better understand and navigate the most intense challenges facing the higher education community and the country today.

In particular, the findings are an opportunity to re-center the national discussion around students and away from politics. The findings show strong support for calming actions, such as major public statements by university and national leaders that would condemn violence of any kind against any group of people. Every leader in a position of power, including protest organizers, should thus find ways to send the message, repeatedly and convincingly, that violence is never justified. They should also clarify policies on permissible political action on campus by students toward students and mechanisms and obligations to report and respond to incidents and inform campus communities about the different perceptions of intent associated with protest phrases that are encouraging campus fears. These steps will not solve everything, but reducing fears for some can have cascading calming effects for many.

Chicago: University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST) 2024. 446p.

By Polona Car, Beatrix Immenkamp

Differences between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) over the regulation of online platforms have taken on a new dimension under the Trump administration. Senior members of the US administration have strongly criticised the EU for 'limiting free speech' and have called the EU's content moderation law 'incompatible with America's free speech tradition'. Much of the debate is informed by misconceptions and misunderstandings. The differences between the US and EU hate speech regimes are striking, largely for historical reasons. The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides almost absolute protection to freedom of expression. By contrast, European and EU law curtails the right to freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which applies to all EU Member States, states that freedom of expressions 'carries with it duties and responsibilities'. In a democratic society, restrictions may be imposed in the interest, among others, 'of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others'. EU legislation criminalises hate speech that publicly incites to violence or hatred and targets a set of protected characteristics: race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Even though legislation in EU Member States varies widely, many have extended protection from hate speech to additional characteristics. In light of the exponential growth of the internet and the use of social media, the debate about hate speech has essentially become about regulating social media companies. The focus has been on the question of whether and to what extent service providers are responsible for removing hate speech published on social media platforms. The US has opted not to impose any obligation on social media companies to remove content created by third parties, merely granting them the right to restrict access to certain material deemed to be 'obscene' or 'otherwise objectionable'. By contrast, the EU has adopted regulation that obliges companies to remove offensive content created by third parties, including hate speech, once it is brought to their attention. Social media companies also self-regulate, by adopting community guidelines that allow users to flag hate speech and ask for its removal.

Brussels: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 10p.

By Dr. Chance Miller

Especially in areas where it has been authorized for medical and adult use, marijuana consumption is increasing. From chronic pain to anxiety, insomnia, and even appetite loss, people all around are finding its therapeutic benefits. More and more patients are using medical marijuana for relief. A key component of cardiovascular health is blood pressure— the pressure of blood against the walls of your arteries. Consistently elevated blood pressure, or hypertension, can cause major health problems, including heart disease, stroke, and renal damage. Understanding how marijuana affects blood pressure has grown more crucial given its rising popularity—particularly for those who might already have hypertension or heart issues. This article will help you decide whether marijuana could be a good fit for patients with blood pressure issues, as well as how it might affect heart health and the connection between marijuana and blood pressure. Whether you are thinking about medical marijuana for a chronic ailment or just interested in its effects on your health, this knowledge is essential for making an informed choice.

How Marijuana Affects the Body Before knowing how marijuana affects blood pressure, one must first appreciate its more general interaction with the human body.

TeleLeaf. 2025. 5p.

By Aravind Boddupalli and Elaine Maag

Low-income families are overly burdened by financial penalties imposed for violations of the law, including parking and speeding tickets, court-imposed fees used to cover administrative costs of courts and prisons, and other criminal legal charges and penalties. Lacking financial resources, these families often turn to high-cost and predatory services and forgo basic necessities to avoid further legal consequences. When the federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) was temporarily expanded in 2021 to provide benefits to children in households with low or no incomes, it provided parents with new resources to invest in their children. Monthly deposits of CTC benefits also helped families better navigate their debt, including debt from fines and fees. Though, in some cases, CTC deposits were taken through garnishments by non-federal creditors reducing debt with involuntary payments. While the expanded CTC provided these families with some relief from onerous fines and fees, a temporary tax policy should not be used to solve the inequitable system of fines and fees in criminal law.

Human Rights, Volume 48, Number 3, April 2023.

Edited by Scherto Gill

Collective efforts to address the legacies of slavery and colonialism tend to orient solely towards dealing with material compensation, such as reducing economic disparity, and levelling access to public services. However, communities directly impacted by the dehumanizing legacies have insisted on a broader reckoning—one that recognizes all dimensions of the harms, including the spiritual injury and the relevant psychosocial trauma inflicted across the generations. They remind us that harms of structural injustice extend beyond the material, the physical and the psychological, also entangling the moral, relational, and spiritual fabric of human life. Understanding harms of inhumanity brings to light the layers of damage and is key to identifying interdisciplinary approaches to collective healing, social transformation and the well-being of all.

This book emerges from the ongoing intellectual dialogue as part of the UNESCO Collective Healing Initiative. The Initiative focuses on healing the wounds of inhumanity, co-creating just societies and enhancing the flourishing of current and future generations.

Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2025, 530p.

Larry Diamond, Edward B. Foley, and Richard H. Pildes, editors

In the midst of the political ugliness that has become part of our everyday reality, are there steps that can be taken to counter polarization and extremism—practical steps that are acceptable across the political spectrum? To answer that question, starting from the premise that the way our political processes are designed inevitably creates incentives for certain styles of politics and candidates, the Task Force on American Electoral Reform spent two years exploring alternative ideas for reforming key aspects of the US electoral process. The results of their work are presented in this essential book.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2025. 347p.

By Joshua Burraway

What does it mean to exist outside the normative temporality of life, of housed living, and, ultimately, of selfhood? Becoming Somebody Else takes up this question, offering a window into the fragmented and chaotic lives of people experiencing homelessness in urban London as they drink and drug themselves into blackout in post-austerity Britain. A state of being where time, body, agency, and self collapse into a memoryless abyss, the blackout is a prism into how human beings make and unmake their selfhood in the wake of social suffering and personal trauma. Attending to the words and histories of several individuals, Joshua Burraway knits together structural, psychological, and phenomenological approaches to understand the ways in which memory, agency, and selfhood are sites of struggle and belonging, and in doing so, suggests new ways of thinking about addiction, homelessness, and therapeutic possibility.

Chicago: HAU Books, 2025. 329p.