News
Thrive Scholars Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on Race-Conscious Admissions
Last Updated on June 28, 2024 by Daily News Staff
LOS ANGELES /PRNewswire/ — Today, the Supreme Court has ruled that colleges are no longer allowed to use race as a criterion for admissions, stripping college admissions officers of one of their most effective interventions for making their campuses the types of diverse learning institutions they know will best prepare all students for lifelong success.
Thrive Scholars, a national nonprofit that for 20 years has supported high-achieving, underrepresented students of color get into and graduate from top colleges to help them find success in careers that lead to economic mobility, believes this decision will exacerbate diversity challenges on campus, make it harder for talented students of color to achieve their dreams, hinder their sense of belonging, and send the wrong signal to students currently on campuses across the country.
“Before I was connected with Thrive Scholars, I was limited by what I was able to see and didn’t have exposure to the opportunities that were truly out there,” said Venezia Garza, a Thrive Scholar and college student in her junior year at Princeton. “Within school, I struggled to feel a sense of belonging as the goals I had for myself of pursuing higher education were out of place and foreign to most. Attending my first Summer Academy as a Thrive Scholar completely broke down the limiting perceptions of myself and introduced me to a brilliant community of students who looked like myself and had lived through similar experiences. Summer Academy prepared me with the intellectual tools I now use to find success at Princeton.”
As Justice Sotomayor references in her dissent, one main reason colleges use race as a factor in college admissions is to address the opportunity gap – the fact that while talent is equally distributed, opportunity is not. Many under-resourced high schools serve student populations primarily comprised of students of color and do not provide them the opportunities they need to develop the credentials selective colleges are looking for in admissions. For example, more than half of the public high schools where Black and Latino students make up the majority of enrollment do not offer AP Calculus – a gateway course to many top selective colleges.
This understanding forms the foundation for Thrive Scholar’s programming. By providing the academic support and access to opportunity in high school that more privileged students take for granted to a broader, more diverse range of students, we help talented students develop the credentials, skills, and experiences top colleges are looking for.
“We start with our Summer Academy, an academically intensive program over two summers in the 11th and 12th grade where our Scholars attend a daily three-hour calculus class and a three-hour college writing course every day for six weeks each summer, taught by college professors on a college campus,” said Tyra Anderson-Montina, Chief Program Officer at Thrive Scholars. “The data on this intervention is overwhelming. Over 40 percent of our Scholars who participate in Thrive Scholars’ Summer Academy attend Ivy Plus colleges, with 85 percent attending the Top 50 schools.”
Students who participate in Thrive Scholars Summer Academy statistically go on to have a higher college GPA, are 10% more likely to graduate, and are 33% more likely to persist in STEM than students of all demographic backgrounds who attend their same top schools. The data is clear – these students have the talent and determination to succeed; they just need the same access to opportunity and skills building that others take for granted.
“While the laws may change, our values will not. At Thrive Scholars, we believe high-achieving students of color belong in higher ed institutions and diverse college campuses are important,” said Steve Stein, CEO of Thrive Scholars. “We will work with our academic partners to comply with all laws as we advance our mission in this new environment. We believe our mission is more relevant and vital now than ever before and will continue to support underserved talent in their academic and career journeys.”
About Thrive Scholars
Thrive Scholars is a national nonprofit that for 20 years has worked hard to help high-achieving, underrepresented students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds get into and graduate from top colleges equipped to achieve their full career potential. Thrive Scholars uses data to develop programming that translates to Scholar success through a full suite of academic preparation, mentorship, social-emotional, financial, and career counseling to close the opportunity gap.
SOURCE Thrive Scholars
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/category/the-bridge
Economy
U.S. Consumer Confidence Slips as Americans Grow More Cautious About the Future
U.S. consumer confidence edged lower in August as Americans became more pessimistic about jobs, income and business conditions over the next six months, despite improved views of the current economy.
NEW YORK — U.S. consumer confidence edged lower in August as Americans expressed greater concern about future business conditions, jobs and household income, even as their assessment of the current economy improved.
The Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell 0.8 points to 89.4 in August, down from 90.2 in July.
The relatively small decline, however, masks a widening gap between how consumers view conditions today and what they expect in the months ahead.
The Present Situation Index, which measures consumers’ assessment of current business and labor market conditions, climbed 6.8 points to 121.2, reversing three consecutive months of declines.
Meanwhile, the Expectations Index, which measures the short-term outlook for income, business and employment conditions, dropped 5.8 points to 68.2.
“Consumer confidence moderated slightly in August for a second consecutive month,” Dana M. Peterson, chief economist at The Conference Board, said in the organization’s Aug. 25 release.
Jobs Look Better Today — But Consumers Worry About Tomorrow
Americans’ perceptions of the current labor market improved considerably during August. About 27% said jobs were plentiful, up from 24.4% in July, while 19.5% said jobs were hard to get, down from 21.7%.
The outlook for the next six months was considerably weaker.
Only 14.6% expected more jobs to become available, compared with 16.4% in July. At the same time, 26.1% expected fewer jobs.
Consumers were also less optimistic about their incomes. About 17.6% expected their income to increase, down from 19.5% in July, while 13.8% expected their income to decline.
Prices Remain on Consumers’ Minds
Inflation continues to influence how Americans feel about the economy. According to The Conference Board, consumers’ written responses frequently mentioned prices, oil and gasoline, food and groceries, trade, jobs, and war or conflict.
Average and median expectations for inflation over the next 12 months also increased slightly.
Interest rates remain another concern. More than six in 10 consumers — 61.3% — expected interest rates to rise over the next year, although that was slightly lower than the 62% recorded in July.
Consumers Are Still Planning to Spend
The softer outlook hasn’t eliminated Americans’ willingness to make purchases.
Auto-buying expectations remained strong on a six-month moving-average basis, while homebuying expectations declined slightly in August but remained on a longer-term upward trend after hitting decade lows in early 2024.
Restaurants, bars and takeout; utilities; and streaming, internet and mobile services ranked among consumers’ leading planned service expenses.
Consumers were less enthusiastic about discretionary activities including movies, personal-travel hotels, airfare, amusement parks, museums and historical sites.
Why It Matters
The August numbers paint a mixed picture of the American consumer.
People are seeing some improvement in the economy they are experiencing today, particularly in the labor market. But their expectations for the next six months are becoming noticeably more cautious.
That divide matters because consumer spending represents a major part of U.S. economic activity. If concerns about employment, inflation and household income begin translating into reduced spending, weakening confidence could eventually become more significant for the broader economy.
For now, the August survey suggests Americans haven’t stopped spending — but they’re increasingly keeping an eye on what may be coming next.
The preliminary August Consumer Confidence Survey was conducted online for The Conference Board by Toluna. The survey period was Aug. 3–16, 2026.
Source: The Conference Board, August 2026 Consumer Confidence Survey®, released Aug. 25, 2026.
STM Daily News Economy News Brief
Sources
- The Conference Board — U.S. Consumer Confidence, August 2026 — Primary source for the August Consumer Confidence Index, Present Situation Index and Expectations Index.
- The Conference Board — Consumer Confidence Survey & Data — Consumer confidence survey information, methodology and release schedule.
Related Economic Data
- Bureau of Economic Analysis — Consumer Spending — Official U.S. data tracking personal consumption expenditures. Consumer spending increased 0.2% in July 2026.
- BEA — Personal Income and Outlays, July 2026 — Tracks household income, disposable income, consumer spending and saving.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics — Consumer Price Index — Official inflation data. The July 2026 CPI was up 3.4% from a year earlier; August CPI is scheduled for release September 11.
- Federal Reserve — Consumer Credit — Federal Reserve data covering revolving and nonrevolving consumer credit.
Lifestyle
California and Minnesota Face $1B Medicaid Funding Hold
The Trump administration is withholding more than $1 billion in Medicaid funding from California and Minnesota over disputed medical claims. A social-policy historian examines how concerns about fraud have historically been used to justify funding cuts and undermine public confidence in Medicaid.
Ben Zdencanovic, University of Cambridge
California and Minnesota Face $1B Medicaid Funding Hold
The Trump administration announced on July 21, 2026, that it’s withholding US$867 million in federal healthcare funding for California and $200 million for Minnesota – a total of more than $1 billion.
Federal officials said the two states had failed to provide sufficient evidence that a number of disputed medical claims were legitimate. These include bills for in-home care and other services covered by the two states’ Medicaid programs for low-income residents.
Medicaid administrators say the funds can be recovered if the states supply the requested documentation. But the action is highly unusual: Typically, Medicaid officials partner with states to conduct an audit when they suspect fraud, a careful process that often takes years.
It’s the second time in 2026 that the Trump administration has withheld or deferred federal Medicaid funds for several states, including California and Minnesota, because of alleged fraud and abuse. The Democratic governors of those states have called the decision a politically motivated attack on their constituents.
I’m a historian of social policy who led the first comprehensive historical overview of Medi-Cal, California’s statewide Medicaid system. I’ve found that U.S. leaders have long used the language of fraud and abuse to blur the line between correcting very real failures within Medicaid and – as I believe the Trump administration is currently doing – discrediting and defunding the program itself.
Slashing the safety net
The Medicaid restrictions are part of the Trump administration’s overall efforts to slash federal funding for the safety net.
The large tax-and-spending bill that Trump signed into law in July 2025 as the cornerstone of his second-term agenda pared eligibility for Medicaid by introducing work requirements for some adults. It is cutting close to $1 trillion in federal spending on the program over the next decade.
Researchers estimate that almost 12 million people, on top of the estimated 28 million without health insurance in 2025, could become uninsured by 2034 due to these changes. By mid-2026, more than 3 million people had already lost their insurance coverage due to Republican changes to the Affordable Care Act.
‘Padlocking’ the ‘cookie jar’
In February 2026, Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, announced a new anti-fraud initiative called Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare.
Also known by its rather unsubtle acronym, CRUSH, this initiative is taking unprecedented steps to withhold and defer funds in response to suspected fraud. “CMS is done trying to catch fraudsters with their hands in the cookie jar,” Oz said in announcing CRUSH’s formation. “Instead, we’re padlocking the jar and letting them starve.”
To be sure, Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse – such as providers billing Medicaid for services that are unnecessary or never rendered – are very real problems that cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually. They do divert funds from the low-income and disabled Americans enrolled in the program.
But the Trump administration’s latest moves are part of a much broader history of weaponizing Medicaid fraud and abuse – both real and imagined. I see them as a politicized attempt to prove that Medicaid itself is wasteful, that state governments cannot be trusted to administer federal money, and that public benefits inevitably invite dishonesty.
Providing little oversight at the start
Medicaid was established, along with Medicare for older adults, in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” reforms. Despite providing millions of Americans with health insurance coverage for the first time, these programs had few centralized mechanisms for the kind of federal oversight that could prevent and catch fraud and abuse.
And the sheer scale and complexity of the Medicaid system – joint federal-state funding, varying eligibility requirements, millions of enrollees and thousands of providers – created opportunities for questionable billing practices among providers.
The 1970s saw a number of highly publicized Medicaid scandals involving nursing homes, laboratories, pharmacies and so-called “Medicaid mills” – healthcare providers that sought to bill the government for large numbers of Medicaid patients for shoddy and often fraudulent care.
A series of high-profile congressional investigations spurred demand for stronger Medicaid oversight and enforcement. That led to the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977, which established the national Medicaid Fraud Control Units program.
The state-run Medicaid Fraud Control Units received generous federal matching funds to investigate and prosecute fraud.
The most serious Medicaid fraud was generally committed by healthcare providers and contractors, not patients. Medicaid Fraud Control Units were principally responsible for investigating providers, while also prosecuting the abuse and neglect of patients whose care was billed to Medicaid.
At the same time, however, Medicaid was becoming entangled in a broader political debate over social spending, whether many Americans were becoming too dependent on government benefits, and the alleged use of benefits by people who should not have received them. In the 1980s and 1990s, widely circulated stories about Medicaid exposed fraud and malfeasance by providers.
But disproportionately, they also highlighted the comparatively few instances of fraud by people enrolled in the program, such as cases where they submitted false receipts for covered medically related travel or sold drugs they obtained through Medicaid for free or at low cost.
Using Medicare fraud to justify spending cuts
The distinction between Medicaid and cash assistance programs, such as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children “welfare” program, frequently disappeared in political rhetoric. False or exaggerated stories that portrayed African American single mothers living extravagantly while fraudulently claiming welfare benefits became potent symbols of supposed government failure.
While campaigning as a presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan seized on this trope of the “welfare queen” in his attacks on social spending.
By the mid-1990s, opposition to welfare programs had become increasingly bipartisan. Politicians in both parties often used tales of Medicaid fraud on the part of providers and recipients to justify tighter eligibility rules and spending cuts.
Federal oversight expanded further with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which created the Medicaid Integrity Program and strengthened federal oversight of state programs. The Affordable Care Act, the landmark healthcare legislation Congress passed in 2010, added new measures to screen providers and verify billing.
Concerns about Medicaid’s “integrity” became highly politicized in the debates surrounding the ACA. Critics of Medicaid expansion argued that increasing the number of people who could get health insurance through the program would increase fraud and improper enrollment. Supporters of expanding Medicaid to help more Americans gain health insurance maintained that anti-fraud rhetoric often disguised ideological opposition to the program’s expansion.
Blurring distinctions then and now
For the six decades that this program has helped millions of low-income Americans get healthcare, politicians have blurred the distinction between protecting Medicaid from abuse and using abuse to discredit Medicaid itself.
In my view, the Trump administration’s campaigns against California and Minnesota continue that pattern. It is using real weaknesses within Medicaid to advance much broader political arguments: that Democratic states cannot be trusted, that public benefits naturally invite abuse, and that withholding funds is itself a form of reform.
The result will no doubt be that fewer low-income Americans will be able to get the healthcare they need.
Ben Zdencanovic, Assistant Professor of U.S. History, University of Cambridge
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
💪 Your health journey starts here! Explore the latest health news, fitness tips, wellness trends, and healthy living advice. Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter to stay informed and inspired every day.
Automotive
Slate Truck Moves Closer to Reality as December 2026 Deliveries Come Into View
Slate Truck deliveries could begin in December 2026. Here’s the latest on its $24,950 price, 205-mile range, preorders and Indiana production.
Last Updated on September 6, 2026 by Daily News Staff
The $24,950 electric pickup is approaching production, but early availability will be limited—and many buyers may wait well into 2027.
Slate Auto’s minimalist electric pickup is moving closer to becoming something customers can actually park in their driveways.
After months of describing its launch simply as “late 2026,” the startup has reportedly begun asking some preorder holders whether they would be interested in taking delivery as early as December. The outreach provides the clearest indication yet of when the first production Slate Trucks could reach American roads.
That does not mean every early customer will receive a truck before the end of the year. According to emails reviewed by Business Insider, customers were offered the possibility of a December 2026 delivery, while other estimated windows stretched from early 2027 through July–September 2027.
Still, the news is an important milestone for one of the most closely watched—and most unconventional—new vehicles in America.
From an under-$20,000 promise to a $24,950 truck
When Slate emerged from stealth in 2025, much of the attention centered on the possibility of an electric truck costing less than $20,000 after federal incentives. The expiration of the federal consumer EV tax credit eliminated the subsidy that made that advertised figure possible.
Slate later established an official starting price of $24,950 before destination charges, taxes and accessories. With a reported $1,450 destination fee, the effective starting point is approximately $26,400 before a buyer begins personalizing the truck.
That remains unusually inexpensive in a market where the average new vehicle approaches $50,000. It also preserves Slate’s central argument: Many buyers might prefer a simple new vehicle over a feature-packed model carrying a much larger monthly payment.
The important question is how many buyers will remain satisfied with the base vehicle once they see what $24,950 does—and does not—include.
Basic by design
The Slate Truck starts as a two-seat, two-door electric pickup with manual windows, physical climate controls and gray composite exterior panels. There is no built-in infotainment screen or conventional factory stereo. Drivers can use a smartphone, portable speaker or optional accessories instead.
These omissions are not oversights. They are fundamental to Slate’s strategy of reducing manufacturing complexity and allowing customers to pay only for the equipment they want.
Owners will be able to add exterior wraps, upgraded audio equipment, storage systems, roof racks and other accessories. A more substantial SUV kit can add an enclosed rear section and second-row seating, transforming the small pickup into a five-passenger vehicle.
Slate says its marketplace will offer more than 200 accessories, with more than 80 percent priced below $500. That flexibility is appealing, but it also creates the possibility that a $24,950 truck could quickly approach or exceed $30,000 after buyers add color, audio, additional seating and everyday conveniences.
More range without a higher base price
One of the most meaningful improvements is the truck’s estimated driving range. Early versions of the Slate concept were associated with approximately 150 miles from the standard battery. Slate now advertises roughly 205 miles of estimated range at the same $24,950 base price.
The current specification uses a 52.7-kWh battery and a single rear-mounted electric motor. Slate says the battery can charge from 20 to 80 percent in under 30 minutes under suitable fast-charging conditions.
Approximately 205 miles should make the truck more practical for commuting, local deliveries and daily errands. It remains less suited to frequent long-distance travel than many larger EVs, but the additional range substantially strengthens the value proposition.
Final range, charging performance and other specifications remain subject to change because the vehicle is still in pre-production.
Production preparations continue in Indiana
Slate plans to manufacture the truck at a former printing facility in Warsaw, Indiana. The company says three design-verification prototype vehicles were completed ahead of schedule while expansion of the plant continues.
The factory project represents an investment of nearly $400 million and is expected to create more than 2,000 jobs. Slate has designed its production system around simplicity: composite body panels eliminate the need for a conventional paint shop, while a limited number of factory configurations should reduce assembly complexity.
The company has reported more than 180,000 refundable $50 reservations. When formal preorders opened in June 2026, customers were asked to place a $300 nonrefundable deposit—reduced to an additional $250 for existing reservation holders—to secure an estimated delivery window. The money is applied to the eventual purchase price.
Slate reportedly collected more than 10,000 of those preorder deposits within the opening hours. That shows genuine interest, but refundable reservations and early deposits are not the same as completed vehicle sales. The real test will begin when customers must finalize configurations, financing and purchase agreements.
December would be a beginning, not a full rollout
If Slate places its first customer trucks on the road in December, it will have met its broad late-2026 target. However, the first deliveries are expected to be low-volume, with production increasing during the first half of 2027.
That distinction matters. A handful of December deliveries would demonstrate that Slate can build a saleable vehicle, but it would not prove that the company can manufacture tens of thousands of trucks reliably, control costs, supply replacement parts or support customers across the country.
For a new automaker, scaling production and service can be more difficult than designing an appealing prototype. Slate must show that its low-cost philosophy works not only in the showroom but also in manufacturing, quality control, repairs and long-term ownership.
Ford Fathom adds pressure to the equation
Slate may enjoy an early lead, but it will not have the affordable electric-truck category to itself for long.
Ford’s forthcoming Fathom electric pickup is expected to start around $28,350 and reach customers in fall 2027. For only a few thousand dollars more than a base Slate, the Ford is expected to provide four doors and more conventional standard equipment.
The two trucks represent very different ideas of affordability. Slate removes features and lets owners add them later. Ford appears to be pursuing a more familiar, fully equipped small-truck experience while attempting to keep the price near $30,000.
Slate’s advantage is that it could arrive first and carry a lower advertised price. Ford’s advantages include manufacturing scale, an established service network and decades of experience selling trucks.
The bottom line
The Slate Truck is no longer merely an intriguing rendering or auto-show experiment. A firm price has been announced, preorders are underway, verification vehicles have been built, factory preparations are advancing and the first customer deliveries may now be only months away.
At $24,950—or approximately $26,400 after destination—the Slate remains one of the most interesting efforts to make a new electric vehicle genuinely affordable. Its improved estimated range makes the proposition considerably stronger than it was at launch.
But the original question has not disappeared: Will buyers embrace a truly basic truck, or will the cost of turning that blank Slate into a comfortable everyday vehicle erase too much of its price advantage?
December 2026 may give us the first real answer.
Sources and further reading
- Slate Auto: How to preorder
- Slate Auto: Vehicle specifications
- Slate Auto: Warsaw factory update
- Business Insider: Earliest Slate deliveries
- Axios: Indiana-built EVs target affordability
Vehicle specifications, prices and delivery estimates remain subject to change before production.
🚗 Stay in the driver’s seat with the latest automotive news, vehicle reviews, industry updates, recalls, and buying tips. Share your opinions in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest Consumer Corner Automotive stories delivered straight to your inbox.
