Promoting sex and gender inclusivity in the classroom: A re-evaluation of discipline norms.

Creating curricula that are inclusive of sex and gender diverse students starts with redefining the classroom environment and how course materials are discussed. Such inclusive environments help increase diversity and representation in STEM. However, traditional approaches to teaching and the use of gendered language can reinforce unsupported notions regarding sex and gender. These notions persist throughout STEM and only serve to alienate our sex and gender diverse students and impact their safety. Thus, we have been exploring how best to approach the topics of sex and gender. Our context is in Biology, as our courses can explore the complexity of biological sex, why it is different from gender, and thus why transgender and non-binary individuals are part of natural variation instead of outliers. However, gendered language and misconceptions can appear in any discipline, in the terminology, metaphors, and examples given in class. In addition, all disciplines must consider how best to foster inclusivity among their students. In this presentation, we invite participants to share experiences and concerns regarding inclusivity in their classes, discuss case studies, and brainstorm with each other on how best to incorporate sex and gender awareness in their disciplines. Participants will come away with an appreciation for why sex and gender inclusivity is important, a framework for applying sex and gender inclusivity to their own curricula, a desire to learn more, and resources to help them on their journey

A Decade of Drug Treatment Court Research

As drug treatment courts have multiplied over the past decade, so too have research evaluations conducted on their implementation and effectiveness. This article explores the decade of drug treatment court research conducted at RAND, starting with the experimental field evaluation of Maricopa\u27s drug testing and treatment options to the most current 14-site national evaluation of courts funded in 1995-96 by the Drug Court Program Office. The article presents summaries of findings, a brief description of a drug treatment court typology, and suggestion of where future research might focus