Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing around the time of surgery and long-term prescribing in aged care are among a mixed bag of findings of a recent report into antibiotic use and resistance in Australia.

The report shows while fewer antibiotics are prescribed in the community than a decade ago, there is still room to improve antibiotic prescribing in hospitals.

We are both involved in antibiotic stewardship programs, primarily in hospitals, which aim to improve the use of antibiotics to improve patient care and reduce the potential for antimicrobial resistance.

Here’s why antibiotic resistance is so concerning and what the latest report tells us.

Why is antibiotic use and resistance important?

Factors driving antibiotic use tend to be different in hospitals and in the community.

In hospitals, there are more patients with infections, and these are also places where patients come to with resistant infections. Here, a common dilemma is making sure sick patients receive antibiotics quickly, balanced with not overusing them unnecessarily.

In the community, GPs often have to use careful clinical judgement to determine whether antibiotics are required, or if the patient will recover without them.

If we think of this issue at the level of individual patients, the risks may feel small. But at the population level, using the wrong antibiotic, or using it when it’s not needed, or for too long increases the risk of antibiotic resistance.

This is where bacteria become resistant to the usual treatment options, so infections may continue to progress despite treatment.

This occurs due to “selection pressure”. This means the bacteria acquire changes that enable them to evade the effect of antibiotics, and these resistant strains continue to grow and spread.

---

Read more: The rise and fall of antibiotics. What would a post-antibiotic world look like?

---

Why are antibiotics used in surgery?

Antibiotics are mostly used around the time of surgery as one way to prevent, rather than treat, an infection.

They are generally needed only for procedures where there is a higher risk of infection and for a short period (mostly a single dose before surgery or for up to 24 hours afterwards).

This report shows that just under half (42.7%) of antibiotic use for surgical procedures was not appropriate. The main areas that we need to work on are:

• only using antibiotics for surgery where there is a high risk of infection

• the time we administer the antibiotic dose, ideally within an hour before the skin is cut

• the choice of antibiotic – sufficient to cover the organisms that could cause infection, but not unnecessarily broad that it may cause side effects or antibiotic resistance.

Inappropriate antibiotic use in surgery may have several consequences.

Giving the antibiotic at the wrong time (too early, or too late) reduces its effectiveness. Giving it for surgery where there is a low risk of infection, or for too long unnecessarily exposes patients to the risk of antibiotic side effects such as diarrhoea, as well as increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance.

How about aged-care facilities?

The report shows residents of aged-care homes receive high amounts of antibiotics.

Two striking statistics were that four in five residents (79.5%) received at least one antibiotic prescription each year. About one in three patients (34.7%) were given an antibiotic for more than six months.

Aged-care residents are at a higher risk of developing infections and it can sometimes be harder to spot the signs and symptoms of an infection.

So using antibiotics to prevent infection can sometimes be appropriate but should be a last resort. This is because infections that “break through” to cause infection despite preventative antibiotics are more likely to be resistant.

What else did the report find?

The report also included critical antimicrobial resistances. These microorganisms are a serious threat to some of our last-line antibiotics. These are very difficult to treat and require specialised antibiotics and medical care.

The reported number of these organisms more than doubled from 2022, to 3,389, or more than nine cases each day, in 2024.

The report also highlights that many of these organisms are acquired overseas, reinforcing the regional and global context of antibiotic resistance.

What can we do to reduce antibiotic resistance?

We’ve previously written about actions we can take to reduce antibiotic use. This latest report reinforces that we should:

• raise awareness that many infections will get better by themselves, and don’t necessarily need antibiotics

• for aged-care residents, regularly review medications, including antibiotics, and check if they are still needed

• use the antibiotics we have more appropriately and for as short a time as possible, supported by appropriate oversight in hospitals, and at state and national levels

• continue to monitor for infections due to resistant bacteria to inform control policies

• reduce cross-transmission of resistant organisms in hospitals and in the community

• prevent infections by other means, such as clean water, sanitation, hygiene and vaccines

• continue to develop new antibiotics and alternatives to antibiotics, and ensure the right incentives are in place to encourage a continuous pipeline of new antibiotics.

The wider context

This report is only one part of the picture of how and where antibiotics are used in Australia.

We have previously estimated that around 60% of antibiotics in Australia are used in animals.

This issue was highlighted by recent use of the antibiotic florfenicol in Tasmanian salmon farms. This is closely related to chloramphenicol, an antibiotic used in humans.

This reinforces the need to take a co-ordinated strategy across different sectors, an approach that has worked before in Australia.

There would also be benefits from responding to antibiotic resistance in a similar way to how we respond to other public health threats. So bringing the national response into the Australian Centre for Disease Control, which was launched officially at the start of 2026, should strengthen our efforts.

– ref. Almost half of antibiotic prescribing for surgery is inappropriate, new report shows – https://theconversation.com/almost-half-of-antibiotic-prescribing-for-surgery-is-inappropriate-new-report-shows-276156

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/almost-half-of-antibiotic-prescribing-for-surgery-is-inappropriate-new-report-shows-276156/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Schofield, Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability in Faculty of Science), The University of Melbourne

Space junk returning to the Earth is introducing metal pollution to the pristine upper atmosphere as it burns up on re-entry, a new study has found.

Published today in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, the study was led by Robin Wing from the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany. Using highly sensitive lasers, he and his team of international researchers observed a plume of lithium pollution, tracking it back to the uncontrolled re-entry of a discarded Space X Falcon 9 rocket upper stage.

This is the first observational evidence that re-entering space debris leaves a detectable, human-caused chemical fingerprint in the upper atmosphere. This was also the first time a pollutant plume from a specific space junk re-entry event has been monitored from the ground.

With many more satellite launches planned for the future, this event won’t be the last. It highlights the urgent need for governments and the space industry to tackle this problem before it gets out of hand.

A part of the atmosphere we barely understand

The region that comprises the upper stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere (around 80 to 120 kilometres above Earth) is one of the least studied parts of the Earth system. It’s too high for balloons, too low for satellites, and too harsh for aircraft.

Yet this region is crucial for radio and GPS communications, upper atmospheric weather patterns, and stratospheric ozone.

The upper atmosphere is largely unpolluted by humans. But the new space age is injecting growing quantities of metals and other pollutants from satellites, rocket bodies and space debris.

The impact this will have on the stratospheric ozone layer, which is crucial to protecting life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, is as yet unquantified. But early findings are cause for concern.

For example, research from 2024 suggests aluminium and chlorine emissions related to rocket launches and re-entries may slow the ozone layer’s recovery.

Soot from rocket launches is also likely to cause warming in the upper atmosphere.

Finding lithium with lasers

For the new study, the researchers used a highly sensitive laser-based sensor to detect the fluorescence of trace metals in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. This is not an off-the-shelf and readily available observation system, but it could be.

On February 20 2025, they captured a clear, sudden enhancement in lithium ions from lithium batteries and human-made metal casings used in satellites. These are quite distinct from natural meteor material.

Using atmospheric trajectory modelling, they traced the timing and altitude of the lithium plume directly to the re-entry path of a discarded Falcon 9 rocket stage as it burnt up through the lower thermosphere into the mesosphere over the Atlantic Ocean, west of Ireland.

A rapidly escalating problem

The number of satellites in orbit has exploded from a few thousand a couple years ago to roughly 14,000 right now, driven largely by megaconstellations.

There are many more satellites planned. In fact, SpaceX has applied to launch a megaconstellation of up to one million satellites to power data centres in space. Every one of these satellites will eventually re-enter the atmosphere. So too will the rockets that launch them.

Current estimates suggest that by 2030, several tonnes of spacecraft material will burn up in the upper atmosphere every single day.

So far, there is no regulatory framework for these emissions, few monitoring options and limited scientific understanding of the likely impacts.

The new lithium detection demonstrates that pollutants from re-entry are measurable and can be traced back to individual re-entry events. This is an important step when it comes to holding companies involved in space accountable.

International regulatory bodies need to be set up to liaise with governments and scientists to establish monitoring networks and instruments to track changes to our atmosphere from this emerging threat.

As the space industry skyrockets, our efforts to understand, monitor and regulate upper-atmospheric emissions must keep pace.

– ref. SpaceX rocket left behind a plume of chemical pollution as it burnt up in the atmosphere – https://theconversation.com/spacex-rocket-left-behind-a-plume-of-chemical-pollution-as-it-burnt-up-in-the-atmosphere-276266

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/spacex-rocket-left-behind-a-plume-of-chemical-pollution-as-it-burnt-up-in-the-atmosphere-276266/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Virginia Raguin, Distinguished Professor of Humanities Emerita, College of the Holy Cross

Michelangelo’s fresco of “The Last Judgment,” covering the wall behind the altar of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, is being restored. The work, which started on Feb. 1, 2026, is expected to continue for three months.

The Sistine Chapel is one of the great masterpieces of Renaissance art. As the setting where the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church meets to elect a new pope, it was decorated by the most prestigious painters of the day. In 1480, Pope Sixtus IV commissioned Domenico Ghirlandaio, Sandro Botticelli, Pietro Perugino and Cosimo Rosselli to paint the walls. On the south are six scenes of the “Life of Moses,” and across on the north are six scenes of the “Life of Christ.”

In 1508, Pope Julius II commissioned Michelangelo to paint the ceiling. The theme is the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The images show God creating the world through the story of Noah, who was directed by God to shelter humans and animals on an ark during the great flood. The ceiling’s most famous scene may be “God Creating Adam,” where Adam reaches out his arm to the outstretched arm of God the Father, but their fingers fail to meet.

At the sides, the artist juxtaposed the male Hebrew prophets and the female Greek and Roman sybils who were inspired by the gods to foretell the future. It was completed in 1512; then in 1536, Michelangelo was asked to create a painting for the wall behind the altar. For this immense work of 590 square feet (about square meters), filled with 391 figures, he labored until 1541. He was then nearly 67 years old.

As an art historian, I have been aware how, from the beginning, Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” sparked controversy for its bold and heroic portrayal of the male nude.

Many layers of meaning

Michelangelo liked to consider himself primarily a sculptor, expressing himself in variations of the nude male body. Most famous may be the Old Testament figure of David about to slay Goliath, originally made for the Cathedral of Florence.

The artist’s ceiling for the Sistine Chapel had included 20 nude males as supporting figures above the prophets and sibyls. Originally, Michelangelo’s Christ of “The Last Judgment” was entirely nude. A later painter was hired to provide drapery over the loins of Christ and other figures.

“The Last Judgment” scene also contains multiple references to pagan gods and mythology. The image of Christ is inspired by early Christian images showing Christ beardless and youthful, similar to the pagan god of light, Apollo.

At the bottom of the composition is the figure of Charon, a personage from Greek mythology who rowed souls over the river Styx to enter the pagan underworld. Minos, the judge of the underworld, is on the extreme right.

Giorgio Vasari, a fellow artist and historian who knew Michelangelo personally, later recounted the criticism by a senior Vatican official, Biagio da Cesena. The official stated that it was disgraceful that nude figures were exposed so shamefully and that the painting seemed more fit for public baths and taverns.

Michelangelo’s response was to place the face of Biagio on Minos, the judge of the underworld, and give him donkey’s ears, symbolizing stupidity.

Michelangelo included a reference to his own life in a detail connected to the Apostle Bartholomew, who is located to the lower right of Christ. The apostle was believed to have met his martyrdom by being flayed alive. In his right hand, he holds a knife and, in his left, his flayed skin whose face is a distorted portrait of the artist.

Michelangelo thus placed himself among the blessed in heaven, but also made it into a joke.

Thought-provoking imagery

The Last Judgment is a common theme in Christian art. Michelangelo, however, pushes beyond simple illustration to include pagan myths as well as to challenge traditional depiction of a calm, bearded judge. He uses dramatic imagery to provoke deeper thought: After all, how does anyone on Earth know what the saints do in heaven?

In these decisions, Michelangelo displayed his sense of self-confidence to introduce new ideas and his goal to engage the viewer in new ways.

A digital reproduction of the painting will be displayed on a screen for visitors to the Sistine Chapel during this period of restoration. Behind the screen, technicians from the Vatican Museums’ Restoration Laboratory will work to restore the masterpiece.

– ref. Why Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ endures – https://theconversation.com/why-michelangelos-last-judgment-endures-275323

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-michelangelos-last-judgment-endures-275323/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston

Public debate about artificial intelligence in higher education has largely orbited a familiar worry: cheating. Will students use chatbots to write essays? Can instructors tell? Should universities ban the tech? Embrace it?

These concerns are understandable. But focusing so much on cheating misses the larger transformation already underway, one that extends far beyond student misconduct and even the classroom.

Universities are adopting AI across many areas of institutional life. Some uses are largely invisible, like systems that help allocate resources, flag “at-risk” students, optimize course scheduling or automate routine administrative decisions. Other uses are more noticeable. Students use AI tools to summarize and study, instructors use them to build assignments and syllabuses and researchers use them to write code, scan literature and compress hours of tedious work into minutes.

People may use AI to cheat or skip out on work assignments. But the many uses of AI in higher education, and the changes they portend, beg a much deeper question: As machines become more capable of doing the labor of research and learning, what happens to higher education? What purpose does the university serve?

Over the past eight years, we’ve been studying the moral implications of pervasive engagement with AI as part of a joint research project between the Applied Ethics Center at UMass Boston and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. In a recent white paper, we argue that as AI systems become more autonomous, the ethical stakes of AI use in higher ed rise, as do its potential consequences.

As these technologies become better at producing knowledge work – designing classes, writing papers, suggesting experiments and summarizing difficult texts – they don’t just make universities more productive. They risk hollowing out the ecosystem of learning and mentorship upon which these institutions are built, and on which they depend.

Nonautonomous AI

Consider three kinds of AI systems and their respective impacts on university life:

AI-powered software is already being used throughout higher education in admissions review, purchasing, academic advising and institutional risk assessment. These are considered “nonautonomous” systems because they automate tasks, but a person is “in the loop” and using these systems as tools.

These technologies can pose a risk to students’ privacy and data security. They also can be biased. And they often lack sufficient transparency to determine the sources of these problems. Who has access to student data? How are “risk scores” generated? How do we prevent systems from reproducing inequities or treating certain students as problems to be managed?

These questions are serious, but they are not conceptually new, at least within the field of computer science. Universities typically have compliance offices, institutional review boards and governance mechanisms that are designed to help address or mitigate these risks, even if they sometimes fall short of these objectives.

Hybrid AI

Hybrid systems encompass a range of tools, including AI-assisted tutoring chatbots, personalized feedback tools and automated writing support. They often rely on generative AI technologies, especially large language models. While human users set the overall goals, the intermediate steps the system takes to meet them are often not specified.

Hybrid systems are increasingly shaping day-to-day academic work. Students use them as writing companions, tutors, brainstorming partners and on-demand explainers. Faculty use them to generate rubrics, draft lectures and design syllabuses. Researchers use them to summarize papers, comment on drafts, design experiments and generate code.

This is where the “cheating” conversation belongs. With students and faculty alike increasingly leaning on technology for help, it is reasonable to wonder what kinds of learning might get lost along the way. But hybrid systems also raise more complex ethical questions.

One has to do with transparency. AI chatbots offer natural-language interfaces that make it hard to tell when you’re interacting with a human and when you’re interacting with an automated agent. That can be alienating and distracting for those who interact with them. A student reviewing material for a test should be able to tell if they are talking with their teaching assistant or with a robot. A student reading feedback on a term paper needs to know whether it was written by their instructor. Anything less than complete transparency in such cases will be alienating to everyone involved and will shift the focus of academic interactions from learning to the means or the technology of learning. University of Pittsburgh researchers have shown that these dynamics bring forth feelings of uncertainty, anxiety and distrust for students. These are problematic outcomes.

A second ethical question relates to accountability and intellectual credit. If an instructor uses AI to draft an assignment and a student uses AI to draft a response, who is doing the evaluating, and what exactly is being evaluated? If feedback is partly machine-generated, who is responsible when it misleads, discourages or embeds hidden assumptions? And when AI contributes substantially to research synthesis or writing, universities will need clearer norms around authorship and responsibility – not only for students, but also for faculty.

Finally, there is the critical question of cognitive offloading. AI can reduce drudgery, and that’s not inherently bad. But it can also shift users away from the parts of learning that build competence, such as generating ideas, struggling through confusion, revising a clumsy draft and learning to spot one’s own mistakes.

Autonomous agents

The most consequential changes may come with systems that look less like assistants and more like agents. While truly autonomous technologies remain aspirational, the dream of a researcher “in a box” – an agentic AI system that can perform studies on its own – is becoming increasingly realistic.

Agentic tools are anticipated to “free up time” for work that focuses on more human capacities like empathy and problem-solving. In teaching, this may mean that faculty may still teach in the headline sense, but more of the day-to-day labor of instruction can be handed off to systems optimized for efficiency and scale. Similarly, in research, the trajectory points toward systems that can increasingly automate the research cycle. In some domains, that already looks like robotic laboratories that run continuously, automate large portions of experimentation and even select new tests based on prior results.

At first glance, this may sound like a welcome boost to productivity. But universities are not information factories; they are systems of practice. They rely on a pipeline of graduate students and early-career academics who learn to teach and research by participating in that same work. If autonomous agents absorb more of the “routine” responsibilities that historically served as on-ramps into academic life, the university may keep producing courses and publications while quietly thinning the opportunity structures that sustain expertise over time.

The same dynamic applies to undergraduates, albeit in a different register. When AI systems can supply explanations, drafts, solutions and study plans on demand, the temptation is to offload the most challenging parts of learning. To the industry that is pushing AI into universities, it may seem as if this type of work is “inefficient” and that students will be better off letting a machine handle it. But it is the very nature of that struggle that builds durable understanding. Cognitive psychology has shown that students grow intellectually through doing the work of drafting, revising, failing, trying again, grappling with confusion and revising weak arguments. This is the work of learning how to learn.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the greatest risk posed by automation in higher education is not simply the replacement of particular tasks by machines, but the erosion of the broader ecosystem of practice that has long sustained teaching, research and learning.

An uncomfortable inflection point

So what purpose do universities serve in a world in which knowledge work is increasingly automated?

One possible answer treats the university primarily as an engine for producing credentials and knowledge. There, the core question is output: Are students graduating with degrees? Are papers and discoveries being generated? If autonomous systems can deliver those outputs more efficiently, then the institution has every reason to adopt them.

But another answer treats the university as something more than an output machine, acknowledging that the value of higher education lies partly in the ecosystem itself. This model assigns intrinsic value to the pipeline of opportunities through which novices become experts, the mentorship structures through which judgment and responsibility are cultivated, and the educational design that encourages productive struggle rather than optimizing it away. Here, what matters is not only whether knowledge and degrees are produced, but how they are produced and what kinds of people, capacities and communities are formed in the process. In this version, the university is meant to serve as no less than an ecosystem that reliably forms human expertise and judgment.

In a world where knowledge work itself is increasingly automated, we think universities must ask what higher education owes its students, its early-career scholars and the society it serves. The answers will determine not only how AI is adopted, but also what the modern university becomes.

– ref. The greatest risk of AI in higher education isn’t cheating – it’s the erosion of learning itself – https://theconversation.com/the-greatest-risk-of-ai-in-higher-education-isnt-cheating-its-the-erosion-of-learning-itself-270243

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/the-greatest-risk-of-ai-in-higher-education-isnt-cheating-its-the-erosion-of-learning-itself-270243/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes after the US government released files that appeared to indicate he had shared official information with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a trade envoy for the UK. But the police have not given details of exactly what they are investigating.

It is important to be clear that the arrest is not related to accusations of sexual assault or misconduct. In 2022, Mountbatten-Windsor reached a settlement with the late Virginia Giuffre for an undisclosed sum that did not include an admission of liability.

Being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing in his association with Epstein and and has previously rejected any suggestion he used his time as trade envoy to further his own interests.

What was Mountbatten-Windsor’s official role and why did he lose it?

In 2001, Tony Blair’s government made the then-prince the UK’s special representative for trade and investment. According to the government at the time, his remit was to “promote UK business internationally, market the UK to potential inward investors, and build relationships in support of UK business interests”. He did not receive a salary, but he did go on hundreds of trips to promote British businesses.

Members of the royal family are often deployed by the government on international missions to promote trade. When negotiating with other countries, particularly those which are also monarchies, sending a prominent figure like a royal may help seal the deal. Indeed, the then-government claimed that the former Duke of York’s “unique position gives him unrivalled access to members of royal families, heads of state, government ministers and chief executives of companies”.

It is not unusual for members of the royal family to be deployed by the government for diplomatic missions. Royals often host incoming state visits and lead similar visits abroad, and can be deployed to lead delegations on more specific missions.

However, Mountbatten-Windsor had an official role as trade envoy. He stepped down from this role in 2011 following reports about his friendship with Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences in 2011.

---

Read more: What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?

---

Are royals protected from prosecution?

The monarch is protected by sovereign immunity, a wide-ranging constitutional principle exempting him from all criminal and civil liability. According to the leading 19th century constitutionalist Alfred Dicey, the monarch could not even be prosecuted for “shooting the Prime Minister through the head”. The Prince of Wales also enjoys immunity as Duke of Cornwall, which protects him from punishment for breaking a range of laws.

The State Immunity Act 1978, which confers immunity on the head of state, also extends to “members of the family forming part of the household”. However, this phrase has been interpreted narrowly to apply to a very tight circle of people and does not appear to apply to the monarch’s children in general. For example, in 2002 Princess Anne was prosecuted (though not arrested) for failing to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park after they bit two children.

Nevertheless, there has often been a perception that members of the royal family are held to a different standard when it comes to the law. In 2016 Thames Valley Police were criticised by anti-monarchy groups for not prosecuting the then-prince after newspaper reports alleged he had driven his car through the gates of Windsor Great Park. In 2019 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute Prince Philip for causing a car crash which injured two people.

The monarch also cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. For example, prosecutors were unable to summon the late queen to give evidence in the trial of Princess Diana’s former butler, who was accused of stealing her jewellery.

In response to Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the king said: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

When was the last time a royal was arrested?

You have to go back quite a long way to find the last time that a member of the British royal family was arrested. This was during the English civil war, when Charles I was taken prisoner for treason before being found guilty and ultimately executed in 1649.

A number of royals, including Princess Anne, have committed driving-related offences, including speeding. But this arrest makes Mountbatten-Windsor the first member of the royal family to be arrested in modern times, though it should be noted that he is no longer a royal – he was stripped of all his official titles in October 2025 as his friendship with Epstein came under even more scrutiny.

What limits do police have on investigating royal estates?

Sovereign immunity also prevents police from entering private royal estates to investigate alleged crimes without permission. This can, theoretically, protect members of the royal family from arrest and prosecution. The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 also bans police from searching royal estates for stolen or looted artefacts.

In 2007, two hen harriers were illegally shot at Sandringham estate. However, Norfolk Police first needed to ask Sandringham officials for permission to enter the estate, by which time the dead birds’ bodies had been removed. Police questioned Prince Harry, but did not bring charges.

Other incidents have allegedly led to Sandringham being accused of becoming a wildlife crime hotspot, with at least 18 reported cases of suspected wildlife offences taking place between 2003-23 – yet only one resulting in prosecution.

Another longstanding legal precedent is that no one may be arrested in the presence of the monarch or within the precincts of a royal palace. It was thought that this rule could protect other members of the royal family and royal employees. However, Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest at Sandringham suggests that this antiquated principle may no longer hold true today.

– ref. Why has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor been arrested, and what legal protections do the royal family have? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-do-the-royal-family-have-276466

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-do-the-royal-family-have-276466/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Hebert-Losier, Associate Professor in Sports Biomechanics, University of Waikato

Universities play a crucial role in achieving gender equality, but persistent disparities in leadership, pay and research opportunities continue to shape women’s careers in academia.

Globally, only 36% of senior academics are women.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, research revealed striking gender imbalances in both pay and leadership appointments across all eight universities during the period between 2002 and 2017.

All universities have since worked to address the issue and now have equity frameworks. As a group of women working at five different universities, we analysed publicly available data to assess progress.

We found universities are closing the pay gap, slowly. But men are still more likely to fill senior leadership roles in the highest pay brackets.

Academic pay gap shrinking, slowly

Research published in 2020, looking at data from the early 2000s, found women at New Zealand universities experienced a lifetime gender pay gap of an estimated NZ$400,000.

The odds of women reaching senior (associate or full professor) ranks were less than half those of men. In senior roles, only 37% of heads of department and 25% of deans were women.

Since then, the national median pay gap across all sectors has dropped from 9.4% in favour of men in 2017 to 8.2% in 2024 and 5.2% in 2025, although the most recent drop could be largely due to the recession driving low-paid women out of work.

How do universities compare? As of February 2026, only three of eight universities (Otago, AUT, Auckland) have released recent pay gap reports. The median pay gap ranged between 9.8% and 11.9% in 2024.

However, a closer look reveals the data are skewed by differences between professional and academic staff. For academics, the gap ranged from 14.1% (Auckland) to 18% (Otago) in 2024, and widened at Otago in 2025, to 20%.

Historical data are not available for most institutions, but the median academic pay gap appears to be narrowing slowly, from more than 25% in 2017 to 20% in 2025 (at the University of Otago).

Despite this improvement, men still dominate at the highest pay brackets, with three to six times more men than women earning above $210,000 at one university, unequal pay in favour of men among professors and more men than women at associate professor or professor levels at others.

But there are visible signs of progress, including the rise in the proportion of female professors from 25% in 2019 to 34% in 2024 at one institution (Waikato).

Equity requires support

We wondered if women have become bolder and less risk averse than they were a decade ago.

We often hear of women in academia being discouraged to apply for promotion. A review of research reinforces that women are less likely to take up leadership positions after becoming mothers, internalising barriers and hence sacrificing career aspirations.

Women’s career progression is surely hindered by the relatively weak support for new parents at universities in New Zealand, which offer only six to 12 weeks of paid parental leave at full pay.

This is well below the minimum 14 weeks (recommended at least 18 weeks) of parental leave defined by the World Health Organization and mandated by the International Labour Organization.

In contrast, the Group of Eight universities in Australia offer at least 26 weeks of full-pay equivalent; in many cases, they also provide funding for return-to-work support schemes.

Promisingly, the scales have recently tipped in favour of women in senior leadership teams at New Zealand universities, with 56.3% of vice chancellors, deputy vice chancellors, provosts, pro vice chancellors and executive deans now being women.

However, we observed some disparities between roles, with over-representation of women in senior leadership in academic (83.3%), Māori (71.4%) and health (66.7%) roles, and under-representation in the top vice chancellor role (37.5%). None of the heads of science divisions are currently women.

Impact of changing funding priorities

The research funding context in New Zealand is evolving. The 2025 budget emphasised science and innovation, with a near exclusive focus on research that has direct economic impact.

In 2024, women were principal investigators for 47.8% of projects funded by the Marsden Fund, which supports fundamental research. But this plunged to 34.2% in 2025 following government reform. We speculate this could be linked to the disestablishment of funding for social science and humanities.

Disciplines with higher female representation – including education, anthropology, sociology and criminology – already experience lower funding success rates, for both women and men.

We are concerned the shift in government research priorities will disproportionately affect women’s opportunities for leading research in New Zealand, their chance for research career awards and their academic progression. Success in securing major grants is a key criterion for professorial appointments, but the playing field is not level.

Diversity in leadership is critical for institutional success. Women often show high levels of organisation, resilience, relationship building, boundary setting, flexible approaches and conflict resolution with equitable outcomes for all parties.

We welcome the positive steps universities in Aotearoa New Zealand are taking, but more needs to happen to create an equitable playing field.

– ref. More women are professors, but gender gaps continue to plague NZ universities – https://theconversation.com/more-women-are-professors-but-gender-gaps-continue-to-plague-nz-universities-275656

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/more-women-are-professors-but-gender-gaps-continue-to-plague-nz-universities-275656/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis

The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire and kill protesters.

All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.

In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses – and even the protest songs the two events inspired.

Protests and shootings, then and now

In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.

In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.

[embedded content]

With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four students and wounding nine others.

After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students. Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”

Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.

As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.

Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.

The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.

Different public reactions

After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat the students in what became known as the “hard hat riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.

In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.

The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.

Free speech in protests, recordings and songs

What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.

The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.

Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.

In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.

In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.

Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.

In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.

Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”

[embedded content]

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.

Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.

Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 – just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.

The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”

Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.

At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.

– ref. Why the ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ have echoed with public support – unlike the campus of Kent State in 1970 – https://theconversation.com/why-the-streets-of-minneapolis-have-echoed-with-public-support-unlike-the-campus-of-kent-state-in-1970-274917

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/20/why-the-streets-of-minneapolis-have-echoed-with-public-support-unlike-the-campus-of-kent-state-in-1970-274917/