Stereotypes about poverty mean that policymakers aren’t fighting food insecurity

Despite the country’s vast food production and exports, millions of Americans go hungry every day. While many are quick to point the finger at poor spending choices, the reality of food insecurity is far more complex, write Kaitland M. Byrd, W. Carson Byrd, Leslie Hossfeld, E. Brook Kelly, and Julia Waity. They argue that as long as those in poverty are blamed for their own hunger, policy change is unlikely. In the meantime, local efforts such as food pantries and community gardens will continue to try to fill the hap and help the undernourished in America

Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma*

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. RESULTS: For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0–6), and 1.5 (0–9) respectively. CONCLUSION: A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin

Intersectionality and Higher Education: Identity and Inequality on College Campuses

Terry-Ann Jones is a contributing author, More than Immigration Status: Undocumented Students in U.S. Jesuit Higher Education, Chapter 3. Though colleges and universities are arguably paying more attention to diversity and inclusion than ever before, to what extent do their efforts result in more socially just campuses? Intersectionality and Higher Education examines how race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, sexual orientation, age, disability, nationality, and other identities connect to produce intersected campus experiences. Contributors look at both the individual and institutional perspectives on issues like campus climate, race, class, and gender disparities, LGBTQ student experiences, undergraduate versus graduate students, faculty and staff from varying socioeconomic backgrounds, students with disabilities, undocumented students, and the intersections of two or more of these topics. Taken together, this volume presents an evidence-backed vision of how the twenty-first century higher education landscape should evolve in order to meaningfully support all participants, reduce marginalization, and reach for equity and equality.https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/sociologyandanthropology-books/1069/thumbnail.jp

Appendix A: Qualitative semi-structured interview schedule.

Appendix A: Qualitative semi-structured interview schedule.</p

Descriptive statistics: NSSE students at Meadow State.

Descriptive statistics: NSSE students at Meadow State.</p

Intersectional fixed effects models of academic, social, and campus belonging and willingness to return to MSU by social location.

Intersectional fixed effects models of academic, social, and campus belonging and willingness to return to MSU by social location.</p

Intersectional fixed effects models of academic, social, and campus belonging and willingness to return to MSU with interaction terms.

Intersectional fixed effects models of academic, social, and campus belonging and willingness to return to MSU with interaction terms.</p