by Jerry Mitchell, Mississippi Today
May 17, 2025

MAY 17, 1954

In Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed equal treatment under the law. 

The historic decision brought an end to federal tolerance of racial segregation, ruling in the case of student Linda Brown, who was denied admission to her local elementary school in Topeka, Kansas, because of the color of her skin. 

In Mississippi, segregationist leaders called the day “Black Monday” and took up the charge of the just-created white Citizens’ Council to preserve racial segregation at all costs.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post On this day in 1954. 'separate but equal' ruled unconstitutional appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This article offers a factual recount of the historical significance of the Brown v. Board of Education decision and its impact on racial segregation in the United States. The content is grounded in a specific historical event, focusing on the ruling’s importance in the fight against racial discrimination. The language is neutral, with the author describing segregationist reactions in Mississippi without overtly endorsing any viewpoint. While the article includes historical context of resistance to desegregation, it remains informative rather than politically charged, focusing on the key events surrounding the ruling.

by Steph Quinn, Mississippi Today
May 16, 2025

Mike Graves deferred payments to John Deere for the first time in a half century of farming in 2024.

A million dollars for a cotton picker, $800,000 for a combine and $400,000 for a tractor in recent years drove Graves, who grows cotton, soybeans and corn in Tippah County, to borrow money from Mississippi Land Bank, part of the nationwide Farm Credit System, a co-op that provides financial support for farmers.

But this year, as dim predictions for 2025 have farmers questioning whether a few bad years could tip into a crisis, borrowing money isn’t enough.

Graves said he doesn’t like to rely on federal subsidies, but without the $31 billion in emergency payments Congress approved to aid farmers in December, “wouldn’t any of us survive.”

“I hate that the government has to get in it, but I’m not going to turn down anything they offer, either,” Graves said.

Congress in December approved $31 billion in direct payments to help farmers nationwide cope with lackluster crop prices, high input costs and extreme weather. But some Mississippi farmers said the payments they received through the $10 billion Emergency Commodity Assistance Program were smaller and later than they expected. And it’s unclear when and how the remaining $21 billion in disaster assistance will be disbursed.

Rates the USDA announced in March were much less than initial estimates floated for the per-acre commodity payments – $200 for cotton, $100 for corn, $81 for rice and $50 for soybeans – all linked to an unsuccessful bill introduced by Mississippi Republican U.S. Rep. Trent Kelly in October. Instead, farmers are receiving $85 per acre for cotton, $43 for corn, $77 for rice and $30 for soybeans.

While Kelly’s initial bill calculated payments at 60% of farmers’ losses, the version included in the budget bill lawmakers passed on Dec. 21 – the day a government shutdown would have begun had Congress not acted – figured those payments at 26% of those amounts.

Though the law directed the USDA to make the payments within 90 days of its enactment – by March 21 – some Mississippi farmers said they didn’t receive their money until late April. And unlike the commodity payments, the $21 billion for natural disasters has no deadline for the USDA to disburse it. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website, Mississippi has disbursed $118 million through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program. The USDA has not announced when or how the $21 billion will be distributed.

Will Maples, an assistant professor of agricultural economics at Mississippi State University Extension Service, said that while the state is “nowhere near” the conditions that led to the notorious farm failures of the 1980s, “the concern is, can we get there?”

“If we stay in this environment,” Maples said, “2025 is looking tough, and 2026 is another tough year. That’s when talk about ‘Can it get as bad as the 80s?’ will really pick up.” 

Maples encouraged farmers to look out for “price rallies” as the growing season progresses, and not to be afraid to sell early.

Still, some farmers say conditions are worse than they’ve seen in years, and that the timing of federal commodity payments – well into planting season – hasn’t helped.

Brian Camp, a Union County soybean farmer, said farmers had hoped to use that money to pay outstanding debts in time to purchase inputs like seed for this year’s planting season.

“What they sent us now, it won’t even pay our fuel,” Camp said.

Lauren Swann, who grows cotton and watermelons in Union County, said drought last summer in northeastern Mississippi made margins even tighter.

“The math just ain’t mathin’,” Swann said.

As farmers face uncertainty about potential impacts of President Donald Trump’s tariffs this growing season, some continue to grapple with the consequences of his first trade war, experts said.

On a podcast with Mississippi Today last week, State Economist Corey Miller said that Trump’s 2018 tariffs eroded markets for U.S. agricultural exports and could do so again. The U.S. lost some $20 billion in agricultural exports in Trump’s first term, Miller told WJTV earlier this year.

Maples said that while Brazil first surpassed the U.S. in 2013 to become the world’s largest exporter of soybeans, Trump’s 2018 tariffs – and China’s retaliation in kind – cemented the South American country’s dominance in the international soybean market. China, the world’s top importer of soybeans, which is Mississippi’s biggest crop by acreage, sources some 70% of its supply from Brazil.

For soybean growers, “a lot of what we’re dealing with now is kind of a holdover from the last 2018 trade war we had with China,” Maples said. 

The U.S. and China announced a tariff truce Monday, with both countries slashing tariffs for the next 90 days as they continue to negotiate.

Farmers described struggling to square Trump’s claims to be on farmers’ side with uncertainty about the potential for tariffs to further cut prices. In a March Truth Social Post, Trump urged farmers to “get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product” for domestic sale and “have fun!”

“We’re being told to go out there and have fun, and be patient,” Swann said. “But planting season doesn’t wait, so we can’t wait on help.”

Graves said he hopes Trump’s tariffs will ultimately lead to higher prices, as long as the measures “get everything straight before everybody goes broke on the farm.” 

“He said he’s going to take care of us,” Graves said. “But we’ll see, I guess.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post This planting season, farmers say federal assistance is too little, too late appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article offers a detailed look at the struggles of farmers in Mississippi amid federal financial assistance delays, with a focus on the limitations of the $31 billion in emergency aid approved by Congress. While it presents a critical view of the timing and adequacy of the payments, it refrains from promoting an overtly partisan stance. The article does incorporate political figures such as U.S. Rep. Trent Kelly and former President Donald Trump, providing insight into the political dimensions of the issue, yet it avoids strongly aligning with any political ideology, reflecting a factual tone with nuanced commentary on the situation. The reference to Trump’s tariffs and their mixed impact on farmers subtly engages with political dynamics but remains grounded in economic analysis.

by Christopher Norment, Mississippi Today
May 16, 2025

Editor’s note: This essay is part of Mississippi Today Ideas, a platform for thoughtful Mississippians to share fact-based ideas about our state’s past, present and future. You can read more about the section here.

Several years ago, I confronted the possibility that I, like many Mississippians, had been blindsided by cancer.

A routine blood test detected alarmingly high PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels, and after informing me that the odds were about 25% for a positive cancer diagnosis and 60% of that for an intermediate to severe form of the disease, my urologist recommended a biopsy. Those odds represented a 15% probability of a metastatic crisis, and given the low risks associated with prostate biopsies, I opted for the procedure.

After an anxious week of waiting, the pathologist’s report indicated that I had dodged the terrifying reality of cancer—unlike for the roughly 16,000 Mississippians who are diagnosed with cancer each year, with an associated annual death toll of about 6,500. 

I am a retired scientist and although my area of expertise involves field biology, my research background helped me evaluate the medical options and procedures related to prostate cancer. I could understand the relevant scientific papers and search for qualities that define good medical research: testable hypotheses, large sample sizes, replicate studies, appropriate statistical analyses and peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. When evaluating my options I could avoid ideologically-based claims like those promising that cod liver oil and  other vitamin A supplements are effective for preventing and treating measles.

I also understood that although the initial blood test for PSA antigens, preliminary MRI and biopsy were technological procedures, those procedures were developed through painstaking scientific research—the kinds of research carried out by institutions like the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s (UMMC) Cancer Institute, but now threatened by cuts to federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and National Science Foundation (NSF).

In other words, the Trump administration is directly harming the kinds of scientific research that could improve the lives of those 16,000 Mississippians who are diagnosed with cancer each year.

In 2023, the UMMC received almost $97 million in research grants, awards and contracts, much of which came from federal funding sources. Cutting NIH funding to the UMMC and other American research institutions threatens the well-being of all Mississippians, regardless of their political affiliation, age, sex, gender, race or ethnicity—or whether their health is threatened by cancer, sickle-cell anemia, heart disease, diabetes, traumatic injury or poor delivery of medical services to underserved populations. Who among us doesn’t know multiple people whose lives have been affected by those diseases or problems? Ironically, it seems that cuts to NIH funding  likely will hit “red states” like Mississippi the hardest. 

Scientific research is a human endeavor, conducted by fallible human beings, as we all are. And yet the core scientific process, which relies on experimental and observational studies, verifiable data and hypotheses that can be tested by multiple independent observers, is the only truly self-correcting discipline—one that rises above the (occasional) false leads, mistakes and pettiness of its individual practitioners to improve the quality of life for everyone.

The scientific process is why we no longer believe that cancer is caused by an excess of black bile, as did physicians in the Middle Ages. We now have targeted gene therapies that dramatically increase survival rates for many types of cancers. It is why we no longer believe that malaria is transmitted by humid and stale air.

And it is why we embrace the germ theory of disease; use antibiotics to treat a variety of diseases, from syphilis to tuberculosis; and employ vaccines to prevent or diminish the damage caused by polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough: on and on and on. The medical benefits derived from high-quality scientific research is one critical reason that average life expectancy in the United States rose from roughly 40 years in 1860 to almost 79 years in 2020. 

Of course, federal researchers and research dollars benefit many other aspects of life in Mississippi besides those related to health care. Proposed cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, which could affect as much as 50% of the workforce at some stations (there are four such stations in Mississippi, supporting research projects on everything from cotton ginning to poultry and insect pest management), would harm the productivity and competitiveness of Mississippi farmers.

Proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—54% in the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 funding bill—will hamper the ability of the EPA to clean up Mississippi’s nine active Superfund sites, which contain toxic chemicals like PCBs and dioxins.

Or take the impacts of proposed cuts to scientific research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Mississippi Gulf Coast is imperiled by rising sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico (almost 2°F between 1970 to 2020), driving increasingly powerful hurricanes, and a sea level rise of up to 10 millimeters/per year, which translates into almost 4 inches of sea level rise per decade, which in turn increases storm-driven flooding. Consequently, along Mississippi’s Gulf Coast homeowner’s insurance is becoming more and more expensive, while the nonrenewal rate by insurance companies is increasing.

Even if one does not “believe” in human-driven climate change, it remains imperative to study sea levels and sea surface temperatures to help protect against the harmful effects of increasingly powerful tropical storms—and the equally damaging effects on homeowner’s insurance rates and availability for Gulf Coast Mississippians.

It also is crucial that we understand the costs of extreme weather events, those causing at least $1 billion dollars, to help insurance companies, policymakers and scientists understand major disasters like the hurricanes that batter the Guld Coast of Mississippi—and yet NOAA will no longer collect these data.

Although scientific research is not primarily a jobs or economic stimulus program, federal research and development funding also contributes in vital ways to overall economic growth, maintaining America’s competitiveness on the world stage and our country’s high standard of living.

Recent analyses suggest that net economic returns for federal research and development dollars are much higher than for other forms of investment such as for physical infrastructure, and may be responsible for as much as 25% of post-World War II productivity and growth—and that contrary to claims by the current administration, public research investments are not less productive than private investments. 

I could describe many more examples of benefits provided by federal science funding, but I will end with one perplexing but illustrative story. Last February, President Trump ordered the release of billions of gallons of water from California reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ostensibly to benefit Central Valley farmers and help Los Angeles fight wildfires like those that devastated the area in January. However, there were no scientific justifications for President Trump’s order, as related to hydrology, irrigation or wildfire suppression

 Still, one Central Valley farmer stated that although the water release was counterproductive, “I have a conservative mindset. I encourage the trigger-pulling attitude, like: ‘Hey, let’s just get stuff done.”

Maybe there are occasions when a “trigger-pulling attitude” is appropriate. But when the gun is aimed at your own head, the results will be predictable and catastrophic—whether we’re talking ill-considered water releases from California dams or indiscriminate and draconian cuts to federal scientific agencies and research funding, which will harm the citizens of Mississippi in so many ways.

Bio: Christopher Norment holds a PhD in Systematics and Ecology from the University of Kansas and is an emeritus professor of environmental science and ecology at the State University of New York – Brockport. During his career he published over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers and three science-related books of creative nonfiction, and received awards from the State University of New York for teaching and scholarship. He now lives in Jackson.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Scientist: Federal research and research funding matter for all Mississippians appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article advocates for continued federal investment in scientific research, particularly highlighting its benefits for healthcare and other critical sectors in Mississippi. The author criticizes proposed cuts to research funding under the Trump administration, stressing the potential harm to public health, agriculture, and environmental protection. The tone reflects a clear opposition to these cuts, positioning the argument in favor of government-funded scientific research as crucial for improving quality of life and economic stability. Although the article is focused on the factual benefits of research funding, it implicitly critiques the policies of the previous administration, giving it a center-left perspective. The use of specific examples and the framing of research funding as essential for public welfare suggests a leaning toward supporting government action to maintain and expand federal research efforts.