3.6.6 draft persuasive essay first draft

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

How to Write the First Draft of an Academic Research Paper

Actually making a start and putting together a first draft can certainly be the biggest stumbling block to getting a paper submitted. Unless you make a start, it’ll never progress! Drafting your first paper is even more difficult when you don’t yet have experience writing papers and submitting them to journals.

I know from experience how daunting the prospect can be and just how easy it is to unnecessarily procrastinate for months. But it doesn’t have to be difficult and the main thing is making a start. I’m here to try and help making the process less daunting for you!

This guide to drafting your first academic paper forms part of the publishing series . I suggest reading these associated posts in particular:

• What to publish
• When to publish
• Where to publish

What to include in your first draft of an academic research paper

Let me start by saying that no one should be expecting for your first draft to be perfect! I wasted months of time on my first paper because I wanted to perfect everything, down to the wording, before sharing it with my supervisor. This is completely the wrong approach!

Instead of perfecting your first draft, just work to form the rough structure of your paper around whatever you want your key message to be. We discussed this further in the separate post: Deciding what to publish from your PhD work . Simply try to ensure your first draft roughly tells the story of what you want your main message to be.

It is absolutely fine for your first draft to be a rough cut, it should simply serve as a starting point. Therefore for example you can include extra figures you’re not sure about to be able to discuss with your co-authors whether or not they should be included. Throughout the drafting process you want to aiming to make your key message as clear and robust as possible but for now it’s fine to not be sure on the finer details. It may help to look at your favourite papers from the literature to get an idea what papers in your field typically include.

For now, don’t worry the quality of the written text, or finalising your figures. You want to use the first draft to form the rough structure and be a starting point for discussion with co-authors.

Let’s now discuss how to structure your first draft.

Structuring your first draft

If you already have a certain journal in mind to submit your paper to, how you structure your draft may slightly depend upon the format that the journal asks for. It’s a good idea to check their Author Instructions page which should include a “Guide for Authors”: a walkthrough of each section of the paper. Oftentimes there may even be a template you can download including section titles and advice for structuring your text.

If you don’t yet have a journal in mind, don’t worry. For the most part all journals follow the same format. For an original research paper, usually you’ll include sections as follows:

• Abstract – typically around 200-250 words or less.
• Introduction
• Conclusions – sometimes appears as the final paragraph of the discussion section.

Then followed by Author Contributions, Funding sources, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest, any Supplementary files or Appendix and finally the list of References. None of these sections you really have to worry about at this stage.

Let’s go through roughly what to include in each section:

Introduction:

• A brief review of previous literature to set the scene;
• The motivation for the study;
• The aims of your study;
• Sometimes you may include a very brief overview of your main findings. See what other papers in the journal do.

Always include enough detail for someone else to be able to repeat your experiments, including:

• How many samples did you test? How did you process them? Were there inclusion/exclusion criteria?
• If you synthesised or processed physical samples, what materials have you used? Include processing temperatures, durations of each step etc.
• What equipment and consumables did you use? Include the item code, model number and manufacturer.
• How did you process the data? Name the software package, version and operations you performed.
• Details of any statistical analysis: software packages, models, methods, inclusion/exclusion criteria and so forth.

In all instances where you followed a method developed in another paper, include a reference to that paper. Not only is it good practice to give credit where it is due but you’ll have an easier time with peer review demonstrating you’re following the convention.

Remember, you shouldn’t be discussing findings in your results section, simply presenting them. Therefore there shouldn’t really be any suggesting why the results are a certain way. The exception is where the journal specifically allows results and discussion sections to be combined. Further on in this post is a section about choosing figures and results to include in your paper, and most of these will appear in your results section.

• Your results should aim to convince the reader of your key message.
• Be conscious that when first looking at your paper, most readers will go straight to looking at your figures.
• Cite every figure you include, in the order you include them. Clearly explain what is being presented.

Discussion:

The way I was taught to write a discussion was to simply use four paragraphs/sections covering:

• Your key finding . You can even start it with the sentence “The most important finding of this work was”
• Comparison to previous literature . How do your findings compare to other papers? What was the same? What was different? How do your findings progress the field? What would you recommend next?
• Limitations . Every study has limitations, don’t try and hide them. Be honest with what wasn’t ideal during your study. Examples may be: small sample size, imperfect analysis, impractical sample processing. If you can, cite other papers which relate to these limitations: either in regards to why it’s not such a big problem, how it is common problem, or potential solutions or improvements for future studies. In any case, be honest. You can recommend future work to overcome these limitations if appropriate.
• Conclusions . Give a brief set of conclusions with reference to the potential impact of your work for future studies.

You can see how I used exactly this format for a recent paper available here .

Eager to learn more about the steps involved in publishing your first paper? My academic publishing series is now available as a free eBook which you can read offline. Click the button below for access.

In which order should you write the sections of the first draft?

Everyone writes papers differently, so what works for me may not work well for you. Personally once I start a document for a new paper, I typically write notes for each section as I think of them but go with the following strategy to get the text written.

Generally it is acknowledged that the methods section is an easy section to write, so I would suggest starting there. Even if you’ve got writer’s block, writing your methods is pretty robotic and shouldn’t require much thought. It simply involves writing down the process you went through to collect all your data. Writing the methods is an easy starting point which should give you confidence to dive into the other sections. In the above graphic I’ve separated the conclusions from the discussion but often the conclusions will simply be the final paragraph of the discussion section.

After the methods you can start drafting your key results and your discussion will naturally follow from there. If you follow the structure for the discussion as outlined in the section above, it should also be formulaic and pretty easy to write if you’ve got a clear message.

By all means crack on with the introduction whenever you fancy. If you’re in the mood to write it, don’t stop yourself! I personally like to write notes for it and include key references as I’m going along, but write the bulk of it after the methods, results and the bulk of the discussion.

Usually it is recommended to write the abstract last once everything else is finalised.

Choosing which figures to present

Remember you’re creating a story around your key message. As such all your figures should be helping to convince your reader of your key message.

• Be aware that there are sometimes limits on the maximum number of figures you’re allowed to include (around 8) in the main text of your paper. Usually you can move figures to a supplementary section if necessary. Prioritise the most impactful figures to illustrate your main point.
• Each figure should aim to address a certain point around your key message to convince readers. You can combine figures as panels within a larger figure but only do so if they address the same overall point. Don’t confuse readers by combining loads of unrelated things just because you’re running out of space!
• Always make sure the caption fully describes what the figure is showing. The figure and caption should explain what is going on without the reader having to read any of the main text. What type of equipment generated the data? How many samples were tested? What do the error bars show? What is the scale? For stats: what is the p-value?

You may need a figure to describe your methods but after that usually you’ll try to include figures in an order which tells a story. Importantly: this order may not be the one in which experiments actually took place. You’re trying to tell a story to get a message across, not write a diary! It’s no problem to move sections of results around if it makes for a more convincing message, especially for readers who may only have a quick glance through your paper.

For example you may wish to start with your key finding, then follow with any validation work, then finally include more details to convince the reader. It will really depend on what suits the work you’re doing, but remember that you have full control and your aim should be to make a clear story.

My top tips for putting together your first draft of the paper

Iterate quickly.

My main bit of advice is to get a first draft put together pretty quickly otherwise you risking wasting lots of time like I did! I wish I had sent the initial drafts of my first paper to my supervisor sooner. I spent far too long trying to perfect it down to the exact phrasing of sentences. There is no point getting to this level of detail if there is potentially an improved completely different direction to take the paper in!

What I’ve found to work really well is to set deadlines with your supervisor to ensure you are making progress to submission. You don’t have to have the full paper available all at once. I have had calendar invites set up saying by a certain date I’d have sections of the paper sent across, and to limit procrastination no date was more than four weeks away.

After your supervisor(s) has had a look, send it across to any co-authors. It may take a few iterations until everyone is happy. Once you have the backing of your coauthors, don’t be scared to submit your manuscript slightly sooner than you feel comfortable.

A reviewer is pretty unlikely to outright reject your paper if they want more experiments to be carried out: they’ll ask for what they want in the review process.

Always think about the next publication

Once you start writing, you may struggle deciding what to include and what not to. Remember though that this doesn’t mean you need to delay publishing if you already have a clear story. Unless all your work sits together very neatly, please resist the urge to include everything in a single paper.

If you’ve got results you’d like to publish but they don’t sit nicely with the main message of this paper, you can always consider publishing them separately later. It is much more important to create a clear message with a coherent story than to include extra work just because you did it!

Although some academics shun the “salami slice” connotations of having many smaller papers, it doesn’t always make sense to force different experiments together in to one paper. I recently published two different papers in the same special issue of a journal, both were related but had very different messages:

• Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine
• Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model

It wouldn’t have made for a stronger paper to combine them because in essence they were telling separate stories.

It’s fine for your first draft if you’re not exactly sure what to include. Once you’ve got the rough form of the paper sorted, you can add or reduce bits as necessary. The key thing is to get a first draft done to get the framework for the paper. No one is expecting it to be perfect!

Word vs LaTex

I know some people enjoy using LaTex for their documents, but I’ve never used it. Everyone I’ve always worked with uses Word, so even if I was keen to use LaTex I’m not sure that it would be that easy to collaborate on documents to track changes etc. Journals will often request the paper to be submitted as a Word document so probably save using LaTex for your own internal reports or theses.

Keep your data, files and figures organised

This point extends far beyond your first draft of a paper! Once you start iterating on papers, it becomes more important than ever to know where all your key files are. Ensure you keep different version of documents clearly labelled.

Be prepared for reviewers to ask for modifications to figures or data to be reanalysed.

What I do is keep a folder for the paper and include the main working draft plus other relevant documents like notes or draft of the cover letter. I then have subfolders for data, figures and old drafts.

Aim to present figures with a clear message which are easy to “get”

Making figures is the focus of a whole other post which will follow this one. In short:

A lot of readers will initially flick through your paper and skip straight to your figures. It’s really important that the figures tell the story clearly and can be understood by just looking at the figure and caption. Also, if the readers don’t like the look of your figures, or can’t understand them, they’re less likely to bother reading the rest of the paper. Again, have a look at how published papers present their work to get some ideas.

You’ll want to make your figures in such a way that they can be amended easily to account for any adjustments suggested by co-authors or reviewers. I use a combination of Excel and Photoshop for most of my figures. There are lots of alternatives depending on what you’re presenting, GIMP is a free alternative to Photoshop.

If you make them in Paint and someone suggests making some alterations, it could take you ages. Instead if you make them in a non-binding software like Photoshop you can easily make non-destructive changes element by element.

It is worth spending time creating nice figures. Having polished figures makes your submission look more professional, ensuring the underlying science is easy to understand is critical too. Plus you can use them elsewhere, such as in presentations or other documents.

Got a draft? What happens next

The hard work is far from over once you have your first draft but you’ve overcome a really big hurdle in the journey to getting your work published. Now it’s time to discuss your draft with co-authors, incorporating feedback and changes into subsequent drafts.

There is no certain number of drafts you should expect to go through before submission, just know that you could endlessly spend time finding things to add (discussed here ) and you should be very conscious to avoid doing! For my papers I think it took around four drafts until we felt happy enough to submit. Not all of your co-authors have to give feedback for every draft, I’d suggest the main people you’ll be liaising with will be your supervisor(s) though it’s certainly important that everyone has an opportunity to help.

Once all of the authors, including yourself, are happy with the paper, speak to your supervisor for how to proceed with submission. Some supervisors like to lead the submission whereas others prefer for the student to do so, and then to transfer “corresponding authorship” at the final stages before publication.

In any case, be prepared to feel vulnerable when you do eventually submit the research paper to a journal. This can be completely normal, your work is going to get critiqued! But remember that you’ve done great and rather than leave the data on a computer you’re motivated to pursue publication in turn helping progress your field. Well done!

I hope this post has helped with your first draft of a paper! Remember that you can find the other posts in the series here: Writing an academic journal paper series. Next we’ll be covering creating figures and dealing with reviewers.

Please let me know what you thought of it or if there are any other details of publishing which you’d like help with .

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

How to Stay Healthy as a Student

25th January 2024 25th January 2024

How to Master LinkedIn for Academics & PhD Students

22nd December 2023 22nd December 2023

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Library Home
• Research Guides

Writing a Research Paper

• Draft Your Paper

Library Research Guide

• Choose Your Topic
• Evaluate Sources
• Organize Your Information
• Revise, Review, Refine

How Will This Help Me?

Drafting will help you:

• Get down all of your thoughts
• Determine the best organization for your paper
• Ensure all parts of your essay support your thesis
• See whether your main ideas have adequate support

Links for Writing Help

These resources can help you draft your paper. 

• K-State Writing Center The Writing Center, located in ECS 122D, provides one-to-one consultations and can help students during any stage of the writing process. They also hold hours in The Resource Link in Hale Library every week.
• Using Outlines This page from Writing Tutorial Services at Indiana University explains a variety of types of outlines and their uses in the writing process.
• Working with Working Outlines This resource from the Writing Center at Eastern Illinois University describes the usefulness and benefits of working outlines.
• Considering Structure and Organization This link to a resource from the Writing and Research Center at the University of Washington provides a thorough examination of the structure of a written argument.

Create a Working Outline

Outlines may seem like extra work, but they can make paper writing easier and more efficient. The trick is determining when and how to use outlines so that they serve as a tool to help rather than hinder you. If you like outlines, you might create an outline before writing and then update it throughout the writing process.

Outlines can be used other ways. For example, you might use an outline to transition from research to writing to help you figure out where you're going. You could also use an outline after writing a draft to ensure that every aspect of your paper supports your thesis statement and that the paper's organization is coherent.

Incorporate Source Material Effectively

To incorporate source material effectively into your writing, you need to know how to use signal phrases (attributive tags), when to use quotation marks, and how to paraphrase correctly. 

Signal phrases

• Tell readers the name of the source that you're borrowing information from.
• Lend credibility to your paper by describing the source's expertise.
• Can be used with paraphrasing or direct quoting. 
• Work with in-text citations. (Check your citation style--APA, MLA, etc.--to determine whether an in-text citation is still needed along with the attributive tag.)

Sample signal phrase: "Willie the Wildcat, mascot of Kansas State University, states that..."

Quotation marks

• Use the language from the source verbatim.
• Tell the reader you're borrowing the wording.
• Work with attributive tags and in-text citations to give credit to the source for the borrowed ideas and language.
• Should not be used in a way the misrepresents the source.

Sample quotation (using APA): Part of the mission of K-State is to "develop a highly skilled and educated citizenry" (Kansas State University, 2013, Mission Statement section, para. 5).

Complete paraphrases

• Present the source information completely in your own words. 
• Work with signal phrases and in-text citations to credit the source and to tell readers you've borrowed these ideas.
• Do not merely change every few words to synonyms.
• Do not retain the author's original sentence structure.

Sample paraphrase (using APA): K-State seeks to create an environment that encourages intellectual growth, academic freedom, and individual empowerment and prepares students to contribute to society after they leave the university (Kansas State University, 2013). 

Kansas State University. (2013). About the University. In Undergraduate Catalog 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://catalog.k-state.edu/content.php?catoid=13&navoid=1403

Cite Sources Correctly

Use these resources to help you cite your sources in your paper and on the references page.

• APA Formatting and Style Guide This guide from the OWL at Purdue can help you with formatting your paper, using in-text citations, creating the entries in your reference list, and using APA style in your writing.
• APA In-Text Citations: The Basics This page from the OWL at Purdue explains how to use the author-date system for in-text citations and how to format short and long quotations.
• MLA Formatting and Style Guide The OWL at Purdue's MLA style guide can help you with formatting your paper, using in-text citations, creating the entries in your bibliography, and using MLA style in your writing.
• MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics From the OWL at Purdue, this page explains how to use the author-page system for in-text citations and provides examples from a variety of source types.
• Chicago Manual of Style K-State Libraries has a subscription to the online version of the Chicago Manual of Style. Print copies are also available at the Library Help Desk.
• Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition This guide from the OWL at Purdue can help you with formatting your paper, using author-date in-text citations or the Notes and Bibliography (NB) system, and creating the entries in your bibliography.

Write the Introduction and Conclusion

Sometimes, writing the introduction or the conclusion of your paper can be a challenge. The following tips may help you with the introduction:

• Include your thesis. Forecast the paper's organization with your main ideas.
• Offer a connection. Show readers how the topic relates to their lives.
• Provide context . Add background to bring your audience on board so they're ready for the rest of the paper. 
• Write it later. Try writing the introduction after you've written the rest of the paper. The introduction may come first, but you don't have to write it first. 
• Update it. Review the introduction after making changes to your paper. It may need changes too. 

Here are some tips to help with the conclusion:

• Restate your thesis. Remind readers of the point of your paper.
• Summarize your main ideas. Restate these so readers remember.
• Give it an end. Connect back to an early point in the paper to bring it full circle or leave them with an idea that is vivid, humorous, or meaningful. 
• Keep it relevant. Avoid introducing new topics not covered in your paper.
• Update it. Review the conclusion after making changes to your paper. It may need changes too. 

Check for Overall Consistency

Sometimes, while writing a draft, you may decide to change the direction of your paper. This is OK, but it requires some follow up work. If your paper takes shape in an unexpected way, ask yourself these questions:

• Does my thesis statement still make sense?
• Do all of my main ideas still work together to support the thesis?
• Do I have enough high quality evidence to support the new direction?
• Does the introduction serve its purpose still?
• Does the conclusion function as it should?

If you answer no to any questions, be sure to adjust the problem areas as needed to keep everything on track. 

• << Previous: Organize Your Information
• Next: Revise, Review, Refine >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 1:56 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.k-state.edu/writingresearchpaper

K-State Libraries

1117 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS 66506

785-532-3014 | [email protected]

• Statements and Disclosures
• Accessibility
• © Kansas State University

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write an Expository Essay

Last Updated: December 13, 2022 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Tristen Bonacci . Tristen Bonacci is a Licensed English Teacher with more than 20 years of experience. Tristen has taught in both the United States and overseas. She specializes in teaching in a secondary education environment and sharing wisdom with others, no matter the environment. Tristen holds a BA in English Literature from The University of Colorado and an MEd from The University of Phoenix. There are 10 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 564,713 times.

Expository essays are often assigned in academic settings. In an expository essay, you need to consider an idea, investigate the idea, then explain the idea. Some expository essays may include an argument, while others are purely informative. [1] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source While it may seem overwhelming, writing an expository essay is easy if you take it one step at a time.

Sample Essay Conclusion

Planning Your Essay

• If you are writing an expository essay for an assignment, read the assignment guidelines. Ask your instructor if anything seems unclear.

• If you are writing your essay for a class assignment, consider what your instructor will expect you to include in your essay.

• Try listing. List all your ideas for your expository essay. Then look over the list you have made and group similar ideas together. Expand those lists by adding more ideas or by using another prewriting activity. [6] X Research source
• Try freewriting. Write nonstop for about 10 minutes. Write whatever comes to mind and don’t edit yourself. After you finish writing, review what you have written. Highlight or underline the most useful information for your expository essay. Repeat the freewriting exercise using the passages you underlined as a starting point. You can repeat this exercise many times to continue to refine and develop your ideas. [7] X Research source
• Try clustering. Write a brief explanation of the subject of your expository essay on the center of a piece of paper and circle it. Then draw three or more lines extending from the circle. Write a corresponding idea at the end of each of these lines. Continue developing your cluster until you have explored as many connections as you can. [8] X Research source
• Try questioning. On a piece of paper, write out “Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?” Space the questions about two or three lines apart on the paper so that you can write your answers on these lines. Respond to each question in as much detail as you can. [9] X Research source

• Trustworthy internet sources usually include academic institutions like universities or research labs, government websites, and non-profit organizations.

• Identify the author and his or her credentials. Think about what qualifies this person to write about their subject. If the source has no author or the author does not have adequate credentials, then this source may not be trustworthy.
• Check for citations to see if this author has researched the topic well enough. If the author has provided few or no sources, then this source may not be trustworthy.
• Look for bias. Think about whether or not this author has presented an objective, well-reasoned account of the topic. If the author seems to value a particular argument or slant that is not supported or only thinly supported by fact, then this source may not be trustworthy.
• Consider the publication date to see if this source presents the most up to date information on the subject.
• Cross-check some of the information in the source. If you are still concerned about a source, cross-check some of its information against a trustworthy source.

• Show when you have quoted a source word for word by putting it into quotation marks. Include information about the source such as the author’s name, article title or book title, and page number.
• Write down the publishing information of each source. You will need this information for your "References," "Bibliography," or "Works Cited" pages. Format this page according to your instructor's guidelines.

• Make sure your thesis is arguable. Do not state facts or matters of taste. For example, "George Washington was the first president of the United States," is not a good thesis because it states a fact. Likewise, "Die Hard is a great movie," is not a good thesis because it expresses a matter of taste. [16] X Trustworthy Source University of North Carolina Writing Center UNC's on-campus and online instructional service that provides assistance to students, faculty, and others during the writing process Go to source
• Make sure your thesis provides enough detail. In other words, avoid just saying that something is "good" or "effective." Instead, say what makes something "good" or "effective. [17] X Trustworthy Source University of North Carolina Writing Center UNC's on-campus and online instructional service that provides assistance to students, faculty, and others during the writing process Go to source

Introducing Your Essay

• An engaging hook can take many forms. You could start with an anecdote, an informative and attention-grabbing quote, a bold opinion statement, or anything that will make your readers want to continue with your essay.

• If you are writing about a book, provide the name of the work, the author, and a brief summary of the plot.
• If you are writing about a specific day in history, summarize the day's events. Then, explain how it fits into a broader historical scope.
• If you are writing about a person, name the person and provide a brief biography.
• Keep in mind that your context should lead up to your thesis statement. Explain everything your reader needs to know to understand what your topic is about. Then narrow it down until you reach the topic itself.

Expressing Your Main Points

• A five-paragraph essay should include three body paragraphs. Each body paragraph should discuss a piece of supporting evidence that supports your thesis.
• Even if your essay is longer than five paragraphs, the same principles still apply. Each paragraph should discuss a piece of supporting evidence.

• "Dogs played an active role in Marine Corps missions in the Pacific."
• "The Doberman Pinscher was the official dog of the US Marine Corps during WWII, but all breeds were eligible to train as war dogs."
• "War dogs were even eligible to receive military awards for their service."

• Most of your evidence should be in the form of cited quotes, paraphrases, and summaries from your research.
• Your evidence could also come from interviews, anecdotes, or personal experience.
• Try to provide at least two to three pieces of evidence to support each of your claims.
• For example, if a paragraph starts with, "War dogs were even eligible to receive military awards for their service," the supporting evidence might be a list of dogs who got awards and the awards they were given.

• You could write, "Even though Dobermans were the most common breed used in WWII, they were not the only breed, and were not the only dogs recognized for their help."

Concluding Your Essay

• Note that the second sentence repeats the information provided in your original thesis. It just says it in a new way while also hinting at the information you included in the body of the essay.

• Explain how the topic affects the reader
• Explain how your narrow topic applies to a broader theme or observation
• Call the reader to action or further exploration on the topic
• Present new questions that your essay introduced

Expert Q&A

• If you are unsure about anything as you work on your essay, talk to your instructor or meet with a writing tutor for help. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/essay_writing/expository_essays.html
• ↑ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/expository-essay/
• ↑ Tristen Bonacci. Licensed English Teacher. Expert Interview. 21 December 2021.
• ↑ http://writing.ku.edu/prewriting-strategies
• ↑ https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/tips-on-writing-an-excellent-expository-essay.html
• ↑ http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/reading-and-researching/notes-from-research
• ↑ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/thesis-statements/
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/index.html
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/argument_papers/conclusions.html

About This Article

Before you write an expository essay, take some time to jot down ideas for your essay. Try the clustering method by writing a brief explanation of your subject in a bubble in the center of your page. Then, draw 3 or more lines extending from the circle and jot down idea bubbles that connect to your main theme. Once you have a plan for your expository essay, write out an outline to organize what you’re going to say. Make sure to begin your outline with an engaging introduction sentence. After the introduction sentence, provide some background information and include your thesis statement, which is your main argument. If you’re writing a 5 paragraph essay, you should include 3 body paragraphs after your introduction then a conclusion paragraph that summarizes your main points. However you organize your essay, make sure to include credible sources for important information, like statistics, so your teacher knows that it’s accurate. To learn how to use transitions in your essay, read more from our Writing co-author. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Freida Ghabiliha

Nov 24, 2017

Did this article help you?

Qutaiba Raid

Jan 31, 2018

Maryanne Waqa

Aug 23, 2018

Apr 9, 2018

Nov 25, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Common European Framework of Reference for Language skills

Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) self-assessment grids

UNDERSTANDING

Listening a1.

I can recognise familiar words and very basic phrases concerning myself, my family and immediate concrete surroundings when people speak slowly and clearly.

Listening A2

I can understand phrases and the highest frequency vocabulary related to areas of most immediate personal relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local area, employment). I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.

Listening B1

I can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. I can understand the main point of many radio or TV programmes on current affairs or topics of personal or professional interest when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.

Listening B2

I can understand extended speech and lectures and follow even complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar. I can understand most TV news and current affairs programmes. I can understand the majority of films in standard dialect.

Listening C1

I can understand extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only implied and not signalled explicitly. I can understand television programmes and films without too much effort.

Listening C2

I have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when delivered at fast native speed, provided I have some time to get familiar with the accent. 

I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues.

I can read very short, simple texts. I can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters.

I can understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency everyday or job-related language. I can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters.

I can read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular attitudes or viewpoints. I can understand contemporary literary prose.

I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialised articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field.

I can read with ease virtually all forms of the written language, including abstract, structurally or linguistically complex texts such as manuals, specialised articles and literary works.

Spoken Interaction A1

I can interact in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I'm trying to say. I can ask and answer simple questions in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics.

Spoken Interaction A2

I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. I can handle very short social exchanges, even though I can't usually understand enough to keep the conversation going myself.

Spoken Interaction B1

I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).

Spoken Interaction B2

I can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible. I can take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts, accounting for and sustaining my views.

Spoken Interaction C1

I can express myself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. I can use language flexibly and effectively for social and professional purposes. I can formulate ideas and opinions with precision and relate my contribution skilfully to those of other speakers.

Spoken Interaction C2

I can take part effortlessly in any conversation or discussion and have a good familiarity with idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. I can express myself fluently and convey finer shades of meaning precisely. If I do have a problem I can backtrack and restructure around the difficulty so smoothly that other people are hardly aware of it.

Spoken Production A1

I can use simple phrases and sentences to describe where I live and people I know.

Spoken Production A2

I can use a series of phrases and sentences to describe in simple terms my family and other people, living conditions, my educational background and my present or most recent job.

Spoken Production B1

I can connect phrases in a simple way in order to describe experiences and events, my dreams, hopes and ambitions. I can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. I can narrate a story or relate the plot of a book or film and describe my reactions.

Spoken Production B2

I can present clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to my field of interest. I can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

Spoken Production C1

I can present clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects integrating sub-themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.

Spoken Production C2

I can present a clear, smoothly-flowing description or argument in a style appropriate to the context and with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.

I can write a short, simple postcard, for example sending holiday greetings. I can fill in forms with personal details, for example entering my name, nationality and address on a hotel registration form.

I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate needs. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something.

I can write simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions.

I can write clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I can write an essay or report, passing on information or giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view. I can write letters highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences.

I can express myself in clear, wellstructured text, expressing points of view at some length. I can write about complex subjects in a letter, an essay or a report, underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can select style appropriate to the reader in mind.

I can write clear, smoothly-flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex letters, reports or articles which present a case with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write summaries and reviews of professional or literary works.

Share this page

• Add Document
• A John Steinbeck Encyclopedia

Report copyright / DMCA form

John Steinbeck

Steinbeck, John

Steinbeck, John - The Pearl

Steinbeck, John - Cannery Row

Steinbeck, John - Tortilla Flat

John Steinbeck (Critical insights)

Steinbeck, John - To a God Unknown

John Steinbeck - East Of Eden

Steinbeck, John - The Grapes of Wrath

Of Mice And Men - John Steinbeck

Steinbeck, John - Of Mice And Men

Steinbeck, John - The Pastures Of Heaven

The Short Novels of John Steinbeck

Recommend documents.

Report "A John Steinbeck Encyclopedia"

The Point Conversations and insights about the moment.

• Share full article

Opinion Writer

Not Everybody in the Zone of Totality Wants to Rip You Off

Susan and Martin Cherry were perfectly placed to cash in on Monday’s eclipse. Their Cherry House Bed and Breakfast in St. Johnsbury, Vt., is in the zone of totality. They’ve known an eclipse was coming since 2017. When people started inquiring years ago about reservations for April 7 and 8, 2024, they knew exactly why.

So they raised their rates … not a penny.

“Not a bit. Not even a little,” Susan Cherry told me. “We don’t think we should make anybody else pay extra for something that’s going to be absolutely phenomenal.”

Journalists have collected lots of stories about crazy-high rates for lodging in the zone of totality. The Times reported last week on a Super 8 in Grayville, Ill., that was advertising a room for $949 a night for Sunday to Tuesday, 10 times the usual nightly rate.

But it turns out the Cherrys aren’t so unusual in failing to exploit the profit opportunity that fell from the sky into their laps. According to AirDNA, which tracks the posted rates by property owners on Airbnb and VRBO, as of last week the average daily rate for bookings for the eclipse was up only 20.5 percent from the same time a year ago, adjusting for time of week.

I asked Jamie Lane, AirDNA’s chief economist, why lodging owners are leaving $100 bills on the sidewalk. Nothing new, he said: “Most people don’t adjust their rates a lot in response to changes in demand.”

I asked him whether some lodging owners filled up their rooms at the standard rate before they realized why April 7 and April 8 were so popular. Lane said that explanation makes sense to him. “Something as obscure as a celestial event I think caught people off guard,” he said.

That doesn’t explain the Cherrys’ pricing decision, though, since they did know about the eclipse. Maybe, then, the explanation is altruism, or something else that economics doesn’t account for very well. “It’s a personal thing,” Susan Cherry told me. “We want to be affordable.”

Patrick Healy

Deputy Opinion Editor

Congress Is Back. Three Reasons That’s Good for Biden.

Every Monday morning on The Point, we kick off the week with a tipsheet on the latest in the presidential campaign. Here’s what we’re looking at this week:

Congress is back in session after a two-week Easter break, with a bunch of issues that I think, if played correctly, will help President Biden more than Donald Trump in the 2024 race. Why? Most swing voters and independents ultimately prefer leaders who act like adults, not children, and who pursue America’s long-term interests, not short-term partisan politics. That should benefit Biden if he and his team can get swing voters to listen to them and to see Capitol Hill Republicans as focused on silly sideshows rather than serious statesmanship.

House Republicans may have to deal with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s effort to oust Speaker Mike Johnson , just six months after a few conservatives toppled the party’s last speaker, Kevin McCarthy. Many Republicans dismiss Greene’s attempt as an empty threat , but that’s what some people said at first about Representative Matt Gaetz’s efforts to remove McCarthy. Even if Greene stands down this week, she could revive her threat to Johnson (Gaetz gave McCarthy heartburn for months), letting Biden appear to be the adult in D.C.

On Wednesday the House will send articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate, and Democrats will probably dismiss it quickly, defusing the spectacle. Biden’s team will frame Republicans as more interested in the sideshow, though he will still be vulnerable to any rise in illegal crossings and security chaos at the border this summer.

The House and Senate will soon have to sort out military assistance to Ukraine and Israel. Biden has positioned himself as a one-man American bulwark for democracy against Vladimir Putin. I think Biden has a more appealing pitch to independents and swing voters as the man who stood with Ukraine than Trump will have as the man who … stood with Putin? I’ve interviewed a lot of independent voters in my five presidential races; all but surrendering Ukraine to Putin is not a winning message with most of them.

As we pass the six-month mark since Oct. 7, Israel is the big challenge for Biden. Whatever Congress does on military aid to Israel will matter less, I think, than whether Biden pauses, stops or puts conditions on the 2,000-pound bombs, F-15 fighter jets and other munitions that the United States is transferring to Israel.

In last week’s tipsheet, I asked whether swing voters had stopped listening to Biden. I think more of them will listen to him if Capitol Hill Republicans prove to be, in the words of Logan Roy, “ not serious people .”

Speaking of which: Trump will have his final pre-criminal-trial campaign rally on Saturday night in Schnecksville, Pa., outside Allentown. More on that next Monday.

Advertisement

David Wallace-Wells

We Need a New Way of Measuring Earthquakes

Just before 10:30 this morning, I suddenly got a flurry of text messages from friends around New York City, some panicked and some amused, and some confused about why they had just felt the ground beneath their feet or the walls around their apartments begin to wobble and shake, a little violently, for a stretch of a few minutes.

What happened, they asked, and what explained it? What did it have to do with the earthquake and tsunami in Taiwan the other day? How serious was a magnitude 4.8 earthquake? And what kind of aftershocks could be expected?

Partly this confusion was because New Yorkers, like others on the East Coast, are generally speaking unused to earthquakes, although the city was hit by a much smaller one as recently as January and a bit bigger one about a decade ago. Partly it’s because earthquakes make us quite nervous, after decades of telling ourselves that, like wildfires, earthquakes are something that happens over there on the other side of the country.

But partly it’s because our conventional measures of earthquakes — which we use to communicate to the public the intensity of a given earthquake and the risk it represents — are so poorly suited to the task and so utterly inscrutable to almost any nonscientist.

What do I mean? The Richter scale and its modern descendants are logarithmic measures, in which every single-number increment represents a 10-fold increase in intensification. This means that an 8.0 magnitude earthquake is not twice as serious as a 4.0 magnitude one. It is 10,000 times more serious. And while it may seem, to the average New Yorker, that today’s 4.8 quake sounds a lot like the 5.8 quake that hit the East Coast in 2011, or maybe a little less intense, in fact, that quake was 10 times stronger than this one.

To whom does this approach make sense? Well, the short answer is scientists, especially those interested in describing high-intensity earthquakes a little more precisely, and distinguishing between them. But the rest of us would surely be less confused if the scale were made a little more intuitive. On a linear scale, a magnitude 10 earthquake would be half as intense as a magnitude 20 one, and one-tenth as intense as a magnitude 100 one.

At the very least, we wouldn’t so often respond to news of an earthquake by asking, “How bad was it?”

Farah Stockman

Editorial Board Member

Rwanda Is a Reminder That We Need International Justice More Than Ever

I got my start in journalism covering the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, so the 30th anniversary of the slaughter this weekend feels personal to me.

I spent months on end in the unadorned press room of the U.N. court in Arusha, Tanzania, listening as witnesses — most of them from the Tutsi ethnic minority — described the killing of more than 800,000 people on the orders of mayors and governors. I studied the faces of those mayors and governors and searched for signs of regret as they sat in the dock in suits and ties. Were they monsters? No. They were men who had been in power at a time when murdering Tutsis had become the law of the land.

The great hope of international justice was that it would be a law above such laws, stopping mass slaughter with legal lines in the sand. To this day, some of my closest friends are journalists and lawyers I met back then. They went on to work in Cambodia on the trials of the Khmer Rouge and in The Hague, where they participated in the trials of former Yugoslavian leaders. Now some are working on the war crimes investigations in Ukraine.

We started out as idealistic believers in international justice, inspired by a world that came together to say “never again.” Over these years, reality has always fallen short of ideals when it comes to international justice. The difference between who ends up in the dock of an international court, and who remains in charge of a murderous regime at home, can be arbitrary.

But now the world is entering a new phase when powerful states don’t even pretend to care about international laws and norms. Maybe it started with the U.S. war of choice in Iraq. It continued with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Now the conduct of Israel and Hamas has been a last straw that leaves many declaring international justice dead. Powerful states are not even pretending anymore to respect the Geneva Conventions.

“The paradox of the moment is that there’s a clear understanding that these principles do not apply anymore,” my friend Thierry Cruvellier, editor in chief of Justiceinfo.net , told me in a phone call from Kigali, Rwanda, where he traveled for the 30th anniversary. “At the same time, there have never been so many people trying to bring cases before the International Criminal Court.”

Maybe that’s the tiny ray of hope in this dark era. The clamoring for justice at the doors of the court — even if it is not delivered — proves that it is still essential.

Gail Collins and Patrick Healy

Three Questions for the Queen of Quizzes

Patrick Healy , Deputy Opinion Editor

Gail, I love your quizzes about politics. Your latest one was published this week. When did you start the quizzes? What inspired you to try that format?

Gail Collins , Opinion Columnist

Thanks, Patrick! It’s been an eon or two. I just found one I did back in 2010. Often, there’s something I read that I’d like to share with readers but not for a whole 800-word column. So I just stick the story in a little file called “quiznotes.” Trump claiming he’d been “indicted more than Al Capone” was in there when I wrote this last quiz.

Your multiple-choice answers are very funny — such as asking what Trump said at a New Hampshire rally and offering “A lot of people say I remind them of Robert Frost” as an answer. Do you shape questions so you can write joke answers?

Gail Collins

Sometimes, but there’s a lot of material these days. Trump may be a terrible presidential candidate, but he’s God’s gift to quiz writing.

What’s a favorite question you’ve asked?

I always feel lucky to be able to revisit some crazy factoid or ungodly statement without having to devote a column to it. I randomly called up a quiz from 2019 and was reminded that on Independence Day that year, Trump reminded the nation of the way the Revolutionary Army suffered through winter at Valley Forge and then “took over the airports.”

Certain people are recurring characters in quizzes; George Santos is a recent one.

Santos may be a failure as a public official, but he is definitely a quiz superstar. Readers know who he is, and they’re ready to start laughing even before the question’s over.

On this week’s quiz, one reader commented, “Admit it, Gail. This one was just an elaborate scheme to get a mention of Schuyler Colfax into the paper, right?” What say you?

Well, Colfax doesn’t come up a whole lot in normal conversation, and I’m a fan of obscure vice presidents. If I can’t get to sleep at night, sometimes I try to see if I can name, say, all the vice presidents from the 19th century.

Right now, I’m thinking the next quiz will need an Elbridge Gerry option.

When a Restless Planet Quakes, the Global Economy Shivers

The ground rumbled along the East Coast on Friday, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. put out a fresh statement about its recovery from a much bigger temblor in Taiwan on Wednesday.

Both earthquakes were reminders that we’re living on the crust of a restless planet. Sensitive manufacturing equipment, such as that used to make the world’s most advanced computer chips, doesn’t coexist well with heavy vibrations.

Picture shoving the elbow of an expert diamond cutter at the wrong moment and you get a sense of the problem.

Taiwan is doubly vulnerable because T.S.M.C. makes state-of-the-art chips on which the global tech economy depends, and because the island is on several major faults. It’s near the Ring of Fire, which the U.S. Geological Survey says is the most seismically and volcanically active zone in the world.

T.S.M.C. is eager to quell fears about its reliability. Its statement on Friday cited the company’s “ample experience and capabilities in earthquake response and damage prevention, as well as regular disaster drills to ensure full readiness.”

Chip fabrication facilities, known as fabs, are equipped with chip-making tools that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars each. T.S.M.C. said “overall tool recovery of our fabs reached more than 70 percent within 10 hours of the April 3 earthquake, with new fabs such as the Fab 18 facility reaching more than 80 percent.”

I’m impressed by how well T.S.M.C. — and the entire island, for that matter — rode out a pretty severe earthquake. But I’m not entirely reassured. The next earthquake could be worse. And as my colleague Nicholas Kristof wrote in January, T.S.M.C. is vulnerable to attacks by China on Taiwan’s power grid, or a naval blockade.

It makes sense to reduce the world’s over-dependence on Taiwan for so many of the building blocks of the modern digital economy. But that won’t be easy or fast. For now, we should count ourselves lucky that T.S.M.C. came through this earthquake almost unscathed. (And that the seismic threat to the East Coast is mild by comparison.)

David French

Opinion Columnist

A Smart Idea to Return Majority Rule to the Senate

I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. In the past I’ve supported it as a means of fostering deliberation, to slow down the legislative process so that the Senate can fulfill its designed role as a “necessary fence” against the presumed “fickleness and passion” of the larger and more-representative House of Representatives, in James Madison’s words. At the same time, however, I’m persuaded that it should not serve as a permanent supermajority requirement for legislation. The Constitution, after all, does not require supermajorities, and Senate rules should not cripple the constitutional order.

Filibuster use against legislation has exploded right along with American polarization, and the resulting gridlock is thoroughly defeating majority rule. That means virtually all bills need 60 votes to pass. (The filibuster against nominations has already been eliminated.) So, is there a reform idea that harmonizes the intent of the Senate to serve as a thoughtful deliberative body while retaining majority rule?

Two young conservatives, Thomas Koenig and Thomas Harvey, floated a fascinating idea recently in The Dispatch, my former writing home: “If a bill can’t obtain a filibuster-proof supermajority,” they write, “the filibuster should be reformed so that the bill can still pass through the Senate if it obtains a simple majority twice — over the course of two successive Congresses, with an election in between.”

Not only does this proposal preserve the deliberative purpose of the Senate, it also would enhance participatory democracy. A party with popular (but not filibuster-proof) majorities can both run on its proposals and, crucially, follow through. As of now, candidates for both houses of Congress are constantly making promises they can’t keep.

I’m still thinking through this proposal, but I’d love your thoughts. I don’t want the Senate to be a smaller version of the House, but the current gridlock is crippling our nation’s Madisonian vision for democracy. As Koenig and Harvey remind us, Madison called majority rule the “ the fundamental principle of free government .”

One of the highlights of this job is hearing from the thoughtful people who read The Times. I’d love to hear from you about this. What do you think? My email address is in my bio .

Frank Bruni

Contributing Opinion Writer

Democrats Don’t Need to Calm Down

Democratic operatives and pundits of all stripes are undeniably obsessed with President Biden’s low poll numbers, to a degree that disregards the length of time between now and Election Day, ignores the polling failures of recent years and erases the Democratic Party’s strong performance in the 2022 midterms and in several key state referendums and contests since.

But when the nightmare before you is a second Trump term, how can you not wet the bed?

Forgive my potty mouth, but the “world of Democratic bed-wetters” was the subject of an article in The Times on Wednesday by Adam Nagourney. He interviewed Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist and consultant who rightly predicted that Democrats would defy the doomsayers two years ago, confidently forecasts a Biden triumph in November and scoffs at the party’s apocalyptic histrionics. Can’t we all just calm down a bit?

No, we can’t.

While I share the concern that excessive negativity could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, projecting weakness and prompting surrender instead of a vigorous victory effort, I also recognize that panic is inevitable — and wholly warranted — when the stakes are this huge.

Donald Trump isn’t just any old major-party nominee. He isn’t even the Trump of 2016 or 2020. This time around, his autocratic aspirations are more operatic, his contempt for democratic process more firmly established and his threat to a sane and civilized American future more obvious. I’d be shocked if my inbox wasn’t lousy with emails from friends freaking out about the latest battleground-state surveys. I’d check to see if those friends were still breathing.

But Rosenberg is right to question measures of Biden’s weakness, because such measures have never been this questionable. Trump’s extreme divergence from political norms suggests that normal assessments don’t suffice — or even apply.

Right now, more than six months before ballots are cast, voting for Trump remains somewhat of an abstraction: There’s no great weight to telling a pollster that you’ll do that. But when the time actually comes? When you reckon fully with the endorsement and election of someone who has said all that he has said, done all that he has done and equates himself with Jesus Christ while doing a better impersonation of Lucifer?

There’s no predicting that moment of decision, and as Rosenberg sagely notes, there’s still ample cause for hope.

Katherine Miller

Opinion Writer and Editor

It’s Not Surprising That No Labels Could Never Find a Candidate

No Labels won’t be running a bipartisan unity ticket, the group finally said on Thursday. It’s not a huge surprise, given how many prospective candidates it approached are reported to have said no in the last few months, among them Joe Manchin, Larry Hogan, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and at least one retired admiral.

It’s also not surprising given the weirdness of No Labels as an entity. Formed in response to the Tea Party era, the group has floated and abandoned various projects over the years, and often is attached to a corporate-friendly attempt at “bipartisan problem solving” that makes sense in Washington and isn’t popular elsewhere.

In recent weeks, Tom Davis, the former Republican congressman from Virginia who is a founder of No Labels, was talking about the possibility of a No Labels candidate winning a few states and forcing a contingent election, in which the House would decide the victor through a system not used since the 19th century. The prospect of a contingent election is a good example of the weirdness and risk of this overall project — most people would hear about that idea and worry!

But the one thing No Labels can be credited with here is realizing, early, the extent of the electorate’s unhappiness with Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and the abstract potential for a third-party candidate who drew real numbers of voters. Robert Kennedy Jr.’s candidacy, despite or because of its chaotic weirdness, keeps reaching double-digit numbers in polling. It’s still not clear if he will pull more from Biden or Trump should he make the ballot this year, as my colleague Michelle Goldberg wrote today.

Why did all these people say no to No Labels? A few of them have publicly given reasons (Haley said she was a committed Republican), and politicians can be averse to anything that might diminish their own popularity. But right now, a third-party candidacy by Haley, for example, doesn’t sound totally absurd.

So there’s also the chance that people weren’t interested in running because the odds for it to not be a total bust seemed a little too real right now — that running might peel off double-digit numbers from a major candidate, or even win a handful of states, and throw the country into something like a contingent election — and bring about unpredictable chaos.

Nicholas Kristof

Will Israel Finally Listen to Biden?

President Biden threatened on Thursday to condition aid to Israel on its treatment of civilians in Gaza. But it’s not clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will take Biden’s threats seriously — or that he needs to.

Biden’s warning reflected American anxiety about the catastrophic humanitarian toll in Gaza. He is under growing pressure from senators, the public and reportedly even his own wife to do more to ease the crisis — but he has consistently been reluctant to do more than ask Netanyahu for better behavior.

Even on the same day that Israel killed seven aid workers with World Central Kitchen, the Biden administration approved a major new shipment of bombs and other weapons to Israel, The Washington Post reported .

Biden has long been a staunch supporter of Israel. He belongs to a generation for which the Holocaust was a living memory and saw Israel in its days as a fragile young nation besieged by strong neighbors. He has seemed unwilling to use American leverage against Israel by slowing or stopping weapons transfers, imposing end-use restrictions on those weapons or allowing tough resolutions through the U.N. Security Council.

The Biden administration did allow one Gaza resolution to go through, after vetoing three previous ones . But it then deflected questions about whether it would oblige Israel to comply by saying that the resolution was nonbinding anyway (others disagreed).

Before Biden’s latest threat, the White House position seemed pretty clear that the pipeline for weapons to Israel would continue, and there was nothing specific to indicate that there was some new red line.

“We make no bones about the fact that we have certain issues about some of the way things are being done,” a White House spokesman, John Kirby, said Wednesday. “We also make no bones about the fact that Israel is going to continue to have American support for the fight that they’re in to eliminate the threat from Hamas.”

Jesse Wegman

Jack Smith Finally Loses His Patience

This article has been updated to include Judge Cannon’s ruling on Thursday afternoon.

If there is a more justifiably frustrated man in America right now than Jack Smith, the federal special prosecutor on the Donald Trump cases, I’d like to meet him.

Placed in the extraordinarily delicate position of investigating Trump for potential crimes, Smith has done everything right, bringing two tightly focused indictments against the former president last year. By now, both trials should have been well underway. Neither is anywhere close.

This week Smith finally lost his patience with Aileen Cannon, the novice federal judge handling the case that involves Trump’s illegal retention of highly classified national security documents. In a bizarre order last month, Cannon called on both parties to submit proposed jury instructions, something that normally happens just before a trial starts. In the order, she also seemed not to understand either the facts of the case or the federal law governing presidential records.

In a brief filed on Tuesday , Smith said the order was based on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise,” which is the polite way lawyers ask, “Are you really this dumb?” On top of that, Smith pointed out, Trump’s argument for why the documents belong to him — essentially, that by taking them from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, he magically converted them into his property — “is not based on any facts” but “was concocted more than a year after he left the White House.”

If Cannon refuses to budge, Smith warned, he would appeal her order to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which already smacked down an earlier mistake of hers in humiliating fashion. In an order issued Thursday afternoon , Cannon pushed back against Smith’s criticism, saying she was simply trying to understand each side’s position. She also rejected Trump’s interpretation of the presidential records law and refused his demand to dismiss the case.

This should have been a slam-dunk case — there is a clear federal law, and Trump brazenly and willfully broke it — but Cannon has turned the litigation into a circus with one deeply strange, legally preposterous decision after another, many of which have benefited Trump.

Those looking for conspiracies have widely noted that Cannon is a Trump appointee, but that’s a red herring; other Trump appointees had no problem ruling against him in his frivolous litigation over the 2020 election. Whatever Cannon’s motives, the best argument against her is that she is incompetent.

Smith has shown a superhuman level of patience up to this point. It’s time for him to give up the charade and ask the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case and replace her with a judge who understands the job.

Jessica Grose

What Teachers Have to Say About the Great American Teacher Crisis

In September I wrote about the great American teacher crisis . The pipeline for teachers is drying up because college students no longer find the profession appealing . It makes sense. Teachers’ job satisfaction is at a 50-year nadir. In many states, teachers receive subpar pay, can’t hold students accountable for failures and feel a palpable lack of respect for their work. A new survey of over 2,000 public K-12 teachers, released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center, echoes what I heard from educators and experts last year: American teachers are deeply unhappy with nearly every aspect of their job.

In a summary of its survey, Pew wrote, “Public K-12 teachers are stressed about their jobs, and few are optimistic about the future of education; many say poverty, absenteeism and mental health are major problems at their school.” Compared with the average American worker, teachers said they were “much less satisfied,” and a staggering 77 percent described their jobs as “frequently stressful.”

Nearly half of American teachers said that “the behavior of most students at their school is fair or poor,” and it doesn’t feel like a leap to make the connection between student misbehavior and the high level of teacher stress. Unsurprisingly, while “teachers in high-poverty schools have a much more negative outlook,” teachers writ large are pretty miserable, Pew notes. The most alarming finding is that 68 percent of teachers said that “they’ve experienced verbal abuse from a student — such as being yelled at or threatened.”

Teachers are being asked to solve major social problems — poverty and mental health issues — that they are not equipped to fix. They are trained as educators, not as psychologists or social workers, and they cannot be expected to mend all of America’s ills.

This country can’t afford to have the public school system buckle under the weight of other failures. There is a lack of structural and material support for children and their mothers (especially before their children are born). Until we improve the lives of American families, America’s teachers will be left to pick up the pieces.

Michelle Cottle

Nebraska’s Plan to Change Its Electoral Rules on Trump’s Behalf

Say this for the Trump era: It continues to provide real-world civics lessons on some of the more obscure elements of our electoral system. Just think of all the Americans who know way more today than they did four years ago about voter access laws, slates of electors, the role of state secretaries of state, the vote certification process, the Electoral Count Act … I mean, what better way to teach people the importance of election integrity than to have a defeated president undermine it?

Think of it as a Machiavellian “ Schoolhouse Rock ” for our troubled times.

This is not to suggest that the Republicans’ electoral maneuverings are all shady. Sometimes they’re just cynical and self-serving but not really shady.

Take what’s going on in Nebraska . Raise your hand if you knew that Nebraska is one of only two states that do not award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. (Ten bonus points if you can name the other one without clicking the link in the previous sentence.) In most states, the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote gets all the electoral votes. But Nebraska divvies up its five electoral votes: Two go to the winner of the overall popular vote and one to the winner in each of its three congressional districts. Since being put in place for the 1992 election, the system has, on a couple of occasions — including in 2020 — resulted in the Democratic candidate winning an electoral vote from the district containing Omaha.

Republicans don’t much like it when that happens in this otherwise red state and have long been agitating to go back to the winner-take-all system. This year a bill to this effect was bumping around the State Legislature largely ignored until Tuesday, when the MAGA activist Charlie Kirk urged his followers to call Nebraska’s governor, Jim Pillen, in support of the change on Donald Trump’s behalf.

Several hours later, Pillen issued a statement in praise of the proposal.

Not long after that, the MAGA king himself entered the fray, voicing his support on Truth Social .

And just like that, the political world began buzzing about the issue, noting that in a close race, that one little electoral vote could make all the difference.

Can Republicans push through the change before the legislative session ends on April 18? It could be a heavy lift, as Democratic lawmakers there get out their own civics books and gear up to block the bill.

The Coming Anarchy in Gaza

If you want to make a place truly unlivable, you don’t just bomb it and starve it. You also go after the human infrastructure — the people who can keep order, get things running after setbacks and nurture hope.

I don’t want to believe that Israel is systematically targeting the human infrastructure of Gaza, but the repeated attacks on aid workers who have reported their locations to the Israeli military make it impossible not to wonder what exactly Israel is doing. There’s a pattern here, and Israel owes the world a better explanation.

The deadly attack on the World Central Kitchen aid convoy, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called a tragic mistake, came after the March 8 death of Mousa Shawwa, the head of logistics for American Near East Refugee Aid, known as Anera, an aid group that has operated in Gaza for 56 years. Shawwa was killed in an airstrike just days after the Israeli military confirmed the coordinates of the organization’s warehouses and safe houses.

On Feb. 5, the Israeli military fired on a U.N. aid convoy trying to make a delivery, stopping it in its tracks, according to Philippe Lazzarini, the head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, even though its movements were coordinated with the Israeli military. Israel has accused the group, which operated as a de facto government, of sympathizing with Hamas, which the group denies.

The question of which institutions can keep Gaza from descending into chaos needs an immediate answer. Private aid groups like Anera appear to be the last thread keeping Gaza from falling apart; now Anera, World Central Kitchen and other groups are suspending their work.

Without food aid or any institution capable of keeping order, what will happen to two million Gazans? Once the human infrastructure of a place is gone, that place risks sinking into chaos.

One right-wing Israeli, Daniella Weiss , a settler leader, predicted that if Gazans got no humanitarian aid , other countries would take pity on them and allow them in as refugees, leaving Gaza for Israelis to resettle. That would be a crime against humanity, and I hope it’s not the playbook that Israel is using.

Kristen Cruzata

Opinion Chief of Staff

This Basketball Season, Root for the Women

One chilly evening late last month, I visited my favorite bar in Bloomington, Ind., my hometown, and the conversation turned to March Madness. Hoosiers always love college basketball, but this year everyone wanted to talk about the women: Sara Scalia of Indiana University, Angel Reese of L.S.U. and, yes, Caitlin Clark of Iowa. In Indiana, as in much of the country, fans are showing up for women’s basketball, and — crucially — they’re buying tickets.

I saw it myself just a few days earlier. I was in the stands at Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall as the Hoosiers beat Oklahoma and won their place in the Sweet Sixteen. As the players rushed the student section after the game, locals and students alike hung back to watch them revel. Though the architects of Title IX, Representative Patsy Mink and Senator Birch Bayh, are no longer around to see it, I can imagine this is exactly what they were hoping for when President Richard Nixon signed the law in 1972. But good policy takes time.

It’s thanks to Title IX that the entire country is now talking about Caitlin Clark, who deserves her obsessive following. Clark is a fantastic shooter , a disciplined player and a fierce competitor. She’s the all-time leading scorer in Division I history, men or women. And she’s not afraid to act like it . She’s very likely going to be the first pick at the W.N.B.A.’s draft on April 15. And there’s a good chance that she’ll end up playing for the Indiana Fever.

My hope is that wherever Clark ends up, her star power fuels the W.N.B.A. There’s already an indication that “ Clarkenomics ” — her unique ability to fill stadiums and even raise ticket prices — is real. She definitely sold out stadiums when Iowa was on the road.

Women’s basketball deserves devoted fans, and more of them. Professional women’s basketball is ripe for the groundswell that has come for the college teams. Whether I’m watching the Fever take on the Liberty at Barclays Center later this spring or sipping beers at a local dive with the game on TV, I’ll be cheering on the women. That’s where the real fun and, yes, drama are happening this year.

Ross Douthat

Scotland’s Censorship Experiment Threatens Free Expression

In 2002, the English journalist Ed West penned an essay entitled “Britain Isn’t a Free Country.” His evidence was straightforward: Through the aggressive enforcement of laws against hate speech, Britain was harassing, investigating and sometimes imprisoning its own citizens, effectively consigning the right to free expression to the dustbin of history.

West’s list of examples, which included some cases involving deeply unsympathetic racists and others that looked more like the criminalization of cultural conservatism, is worth revisiting now that Scotland has passed an especially expansive hate speech statute.

The new Scottish law criminalizes public speech deemed “insulting” to a protected group (as opposed to the higher bar of “abusive”), and prosecutors need only prove that the speech was “likely” to encourage hatred rather than being explicitly intended to do so. One can offer a defense based on the speech in question being “reasonable,” and there is a nod to “the importance of the right to freedom of expression.” But a plain reading of the law seems like it could license prosecutions for a comedian’s monologue or for reading biblical passages on sexual morality in public.

The law has attracted special attention because J.K. Rowling responded to its passage with a series of social media posts about transgender individuals that seemed to fall afoul of the law’s dictates. If they do, she wrote, “I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”

My prediction is that neither Rowling nor any figure of her prominence will face prosecution. Rather, what you see in West’s examples is that the speech police prefer more obscure targets: the teenage girl prosecuted for posting rap lyrics that included the N-word or the local Tory official hauled in by the cops after posting to criticize the arrest of a Christian street preacher.

Which is, of course, a normal way for mild sorts of authoritarianism to work. Exceptions are made for prominent figures, lest the system look ridiculous, but ordinary people are taught not to cross the line.

Europe is often depicted as caught between an embattled liberal order and a post-liberal form of populism. But the reality is that there are two incipient European post-liberalisms, both responses to the challenges of managing aging, anxious societies being transformed by mass migration. One is the right-wing politics of national identity; the other is a more technocratic attempt to maintain social peace through a regime of censorship.

Scotland is experimenting with the second option. Both could usher out the liberal age as we have known it.

Lydia Polgreen

Ramy Youssef’s ‘S.N.L.’ Monologue Was a Love Letter to Muslim America

It is a rare thing in our rapidly secularizing country to be confronted with piety and devotion in popular culture. So it was a surprise, and a balm, to watch a man who prays daily and talks openly about his devout faith storm a bastion of earthly godlessness: “Saturday Night Live.”

I am referring, of course, to the comedian Ramy Youssef, who hosted the show on what he described in his opening monologue as “an incredibly spiritual weekend,” noting Ramadan, Easter and the arrival of a new Beyoncé album.

“I’m doing the Ramadan one,” he quipped, to peals of laughter, unspooling a very funny bit about how loving Muslims are. Youssef has mined his experience as a believer among the profane in gentle standup specials and a namesake sitcom. His entire monologue glowed with a welcoming warmth — Muslims, he seemed to say: We’re just like you.

In a country that is supposedly obsessed with diversity and inclusion, it is remarkable how rare it is to hear from a practicing Muslim in America.

Surveys by the Institute for Policy and Understanding, a nonpartisan research organization focused on Muslim Americans, have consistently found that Muslims are the most likely group to report religious discrimination in the United States. According to a Pew survey conducted in 2021, 78 percent of Americans said that there was either a lot or some discrimination against Muslims in our society. Muslims are no more likely to commit crimes than members of any other group, but crimes in which Muslims are suspects get outsized media coverage, research has shown .

It is no surprise, then, that Islamophobia is perhaps the most tolerated form of religious prejudice. Right now, Senate Republicans appear to have persuaded several Senate Democrats to vote against a Muslim judicial nominee after smearing him, with no evidence at all, as an antisemite.

Many of the skits that toyed with religion on “S.N.L.” on Saturday were funny — Ozempic for Ramadan! Genius. But part of me winced through them as well, because I saw in Youssef something that other members of minority groups have had to do to “earn” their place in the safety of the mainstream: the performance of normalcy, of being nonthreatening and sweet, the requirement to prove that your community belongs in America just like everyone else’s.

I loved Youssef’s monologue, in which he bravely pleaded, “Please, free the people of Palestine. And please, free the hostages. All of the hostages.”

“I am out of ideas,” Youssef declared toward the end of his monologue. “All I have is prayers.”

To which this nonbeliever can only say: Same, Ramy. Same.

Israel’s Attack on Aid Workers Can Only Make Hunger in Gaza Worse

The Israeli strikes that killed seven aid workers overnight as they tried to avert famine in Gaza will be much debated, but three points seem clear to me.

First, the killings reinforce the widespread criticism that Israeli forces often appear to act recklessly in Gaza, with too little concern for civilian casualties. The latest deaths were unusual in that they included foreigners, even an American, but there is nothing new about Israeli strikes killing aid workers in Gaza: At least 196 humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza and the West Bank since the war began in October, the United Nations says.

Second, the tragedy will compound the hunger crisis in Gaza that is already leading to deaths from starvation and risking both famine and epidemics. The result is that just as famine looms and children are dying, international efforts to ease it may be reduced, not amplified.

Third, Israeli credibility will take another hit, and America’s with it. Some elements of the Israeli narrative are entirely accurate: Hamas started the latest round of fighting and uses civilians as human shields. But Israel also argues that it is doing everything possible to reduce civilian casualties, and that is hard to argue in this case — and this is also an embarrassment for the Biden administration, which provides an endless flow of weaponry for airstrikes like these (although the origin of the particular weapons that killed these seven workers is unclear for now).

The seven people worked with World Central Kitchen, a charity founded by chef José Andrés, and were in clearly marked vehicles . The nonprofit group, which has now suspended its aid efforts in Gaza, said that it had cleared its movements with Israeli forces, and The Financial Times reported that the vehicles were hit over a two-kilometer stretch, implying targeting by multiple strikes rather than a single errant missile. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has promised an investigation.

The killing of humanitarians puts aid groups in an impossible situation. The organizations focus on easing suffering, yet they also must look after the safety of their own people. If Israel continues to kill aid workers at such a pace, it will be very difficult to distribute aid to the people who need it.

And increasingly, it may be essential to have trained aid workers to provide special emergency foods to children with severe acute malnutrition. All that is now uncertain.

The Biden administration is issuing tougher statements about the situation, but President Biden still seems unwilling to use his leverage to press Israel to ease up. Politico reported on Monday that the U.S. government is considering a major new weapons sale to Israel.

An Abortion Rights Vote May Not Be Enough for Biden in Florida

Just when you thought it was safe to ignore Florida politics, up pops the state Supreme Court with an abortion-rights decision seemingly designed to provoke electoral turmoil this year.

The court allowed a six-week abortion ban to go into effect while ruling that Floridians can vote in November on a state constitutional amendment to protect abortion access before fetal viability (around 24 weeks). The combined rulings immediately shoved reproductive rights to the political front lines. But how will things shake out in this increasingly red state ? And not to make everything about the presidential race, but how much could it help President Biden?

The issue of reproductive rights has been a boon to Democrats pretty much everywhere it has appeared on the ballot, directly or otherwise, since the death of Roe v. Wade. And there’s reason to be optimistic that Florida’s amendment will succeed as well. Though passage requires at least 60 percent support, a November poll by the University of North Florida put support at 62 percent, including 53 percent of Republicans. And that was before things got real with the court ruling.

But can this new wrinkle save Biden there? I mean, this is Florida. The state didn’t show him the love in 2020, and more generally, its Democratic Party has been a hot mess for several years. Registered Republicans now outnumber Democrats by nearly one million . In 2022, Floridians re-elected Gov. Ron DeSantis with almost 60 percent of the vote. Ron. DeSantis .

More troubling, Republican state lawmakers have shown themselves happy to thwart the will of the public to tilt the field in their team’s favor. (See: voting rights of felons who have completed their sentences.) And it is the adopted — and spiritual — home of perhaps the ultimate Florida Man, Donald Trump. (When thinking of the MAGA king kicked back in his so-called Southern White House, I like to picture him with a state-appropriate mullet.)

With the proper mix of sweat and strategy, abortion rights advocates and Dems should be able to save reproductive rights in the state — not to mention force Republicans to burn time and cash there. But pry it away from Trump? That feels like a reach.

Zeynep Tufekci

A Farm Worker With Avian Flu Means a Rapid Response Is Urgent

The discovery of the country’s second human case of H5N1 avian flu, found in a Texas dairy farm worker following an outbreak among cows, is worrying and requires prompt and vigorous action.

While officials have so far said the possibility of cow-to-cow transmission “cannot be ruled out,” I think we can go further than that.

The geography of the outbreak — sick cows in Texas, Idaho, Michigan, Ohio and New Mexico — strongly suggests cows are infecting each other as they move around various farms. The most likely scenario seems to be that a new strain of H5N1 is spreading among cows, rather than the cows being individually infected by sick birds.

Avian flu is not known to transmit well among mammals, including humans, and until now, almost all known cases of H5N1 in humans were people in extended close contact with sick birds. But a cow outbreak — something unexpected , as cows aren’t highly prone to get this — along with likely transmission between cows, means we need to quickly require testing of all dairy workers on affected farms as well as their close contacts, and sample cows in all the dairy farms around the country.

It is possible — and much easier — to contain an early outbreak when an emergent virus isn’t yet adapted to a new host and perhaps not as transmissible. If it gets out and establishes a foothold, then all bets are off. With fatality rates estimated up to 50 percent among humans, H5N1 is not something to gamble with.

Additionally, H5N1 was found in the unpasteurized milk of sick cows. Unpasteurized milk, already a bad idea, would be additionally dangerous to consume right now.

Public officials need to get on top of this quickly, and transparently, telling us the uncertainties as well as their actions.

The government needs to gear up to potentially mass-produce vaccines quickly ( which we have against H5N1 , though they take time to produce) and ensure early supplies for frontline and health care workers.

It’s possible that worst-case scenarios aren’t going to come true — yet. But evolution is exactly how viruses get to do things they couldn’t do before, and letting this deadly one have time to explore the landscape in a potential new host is a disastrously bad idea.

Mike Johnson Is Trying to Explain Simple Math to the Far Right

I come today not to bury Mike Johnson, but to praise him.

No. Seriously. I mean it.

Johnson, the House speaker, sat down with Trey Gowdy of Fox News over the weekend to discuss “realistic expectations” for Republicans in this era of narrowly divided government.

Quipping that he was there as an “ambassador of hope on Easter Sunday,” Johnson offered “three simple things” his party should be focusing on: No. 1, “Show the American people what we’re for. Not just what we’re against.” No. 2, “We have to unite. We have to stand together.” And No. 3, “We’ve got to drive our conservative agenda and get the incremental wins that are still possible right now.”

Nos. 1 and 2 are the sort of meaningless boilerplate politicians are forever blathering about. But No. 3 was clearly the core message of his mission, and he really leaned in, repeatedly noting that his team’s right-wingers — with whom he has long identified, mind you — need to come to terms with the political reality of holding “the smallest majority in U.S. history.”

“We got to realize I can’t throw a Hail Mary pass on every single play,” he said, with that mild manner and beatific smile that makes him seem thoughtful and genial even when he’s speaking harsh truths. “It’s three yards and a cloud of dust. Right? We’ve got to get the next first down. Keep moving.”

Southerners do love their football metaphors.

When asked about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to remove him, he acknowledged that she is “very frustrated” with how certain negotiations have gone of late, especially when it comes to spending. “Guess what? So am I,” he said. But with Republicans clinging to the majority by their fingernails, “we’re sometimes going to get legislation that we don’t like.”

This kind of squish talk isn’t very MAGA. And working with Dems is what got the previous speaker kicked to the curb. (Poor Kev.) But Johnson is in some ways in a better spot than was Kevin McCarthy. A smattering of Democrats have suggested they would save Johnson from a coup attempt, especially on a key issue such as funding Ukraine. Plus, ousting another speaker so soon would only lock in House Republicans’ rep as a bunch of hopeless chaos monkeys — not a shrewd move in an election year.

This is not to say that Johnson is shaping up to be an effective or competent speaker. But it takes a certain courage to talk reality — and math — to today’s House Republicans. Kudos to him for going there.

There’s Valuable Speech on Social Media, Even for Kids

Last week I wrote a rather long column arguing that blanket bans on social media for children are a bad idea, even if you are persuaded (as I am) that smartphones and social media are a significant reason for increasing childhood mental health struggles. My basic point was simple: The First Amendment rights of children and adults are too precious to diminish, especially when there are less restrictive alternatives for combating the problem.

I received an enormous amount of helpful feedback, but I want to briefly highlight one response. The American Enterprise Institute’s Brad Wilcox posted a thread on X that began like this: “Could not disagree more w/ @DavidAFrench here, partly because he doesn’t fully ack how much the teen problem w/ social media is not just about the message(s) but the *medium* itself. Social media does not function like some debating society for teens.”

I respect Wilcox greatly, and he’s got many valuable things to say about kids and social media, but he’s wrong in one key respect: Social media is, in fact, a debating society for teens, just as it is for adults. It’s often a miserable and contentious debating society, but social media is where an immense amount of our nation’s substantive debates takes place. Kids debate one another, and they read adult debates.

Protecting political speech is a core purpose of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court held in Garrison v. Louisiana , “Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” One reason children enjoy First Amendment rights is that they are essentially citizens in training. They have to learn how to engage in political debate.

There are certainly issues with the medium itself, and there are ways to combat the pernicious effects of the medium without obliterating access to the content. The First Amendment, for example, permits reasonable and content-neutral restrictions on the time, place and manner of freedom of expression, and it’s easy to see a valid ban on smartphones during school hours. It’s also worth considering whether certain features of social media — such as infinite scroll — could be limited.

But it’s important to note that time, place and manner restrictions can’t function as a form of disguised content discrimination. If you’re looking for reasons to ban social media because of what’s on the platform, then you’re playing a dangerous constitutional game.

The Christians Who Aren’t Buying Donald Trump’s Sales Pitch

Last week, former President Donald Trump hawked his “God Bless the USA Bible” in a video posted to social media , stating “we must make America pray again.” In a story published today, The Times’s Michael C. Bender notes that Trump — despite a background few would call pious — “is framing his 2024 bid as a fight for Christianity, telling a convention of Christian broadcasters that ‘just like in the battles of the past, we still need the hand of our Lord.’”

A new report on religious change in the United States from The Public Religion Research Institute suggests that Trump’s attempts to tie Christianity tightly to a particular set of Republican political values may be turning some Americans away from Christianity.

P.R.R.I. surveyed Americans who left their childhood religions to become “unaffiliated,” a group that includes people who call themselves atheists, agnostics and nothing in particular. The vast majority of people who become unaffiliated are Christians. While the largest percentage say they left religion because they no longer believe the religion’s teachings, 47 percent of those who became unaffiliated say they did so because of negative treatment or teaching about L.G.B.T.Q. Americans, and 20 percent say they became unaffiliated because their church or congregation became too focused on politics.

“Among white Christian groups, the largest decline in the past decade took place among white evangelical Protestants, whose numbers saw a 3 percentage point decrease, from 17 percent in 2013 to 14 percent in 2023. In 2023, the percentages of white mainline/non-evangelical Protestants (14 percent) and white Catholics (12 percent) remain largely similar to those of 2013,” according to P.R.R.I.’s survey. Trump has frequently and closely aligned himself with white evangelical Christians.

P.R.R.I.’s findings align with what I learned last year when reporting on those leaving religion. As one woman I spoke to put it, she became less religious “because evangelicals became apostates who worship Trump, nationalism and the Republican Party.” Trump promoting a Bible is just another example of his modus operandi: He may make a quick buck, but at what cost to the institution in the long run?

Whether it’s a political or religious institution, the outcome always appears to be the same.

Have Swing Voters Stopped Listening to Joe Biden?

One of the worst things that can happen to a president seeking re-election is to have voters stop listening to you. As the campaign unfolds this week, I’m curious whether President Biden says or does things that really command attention from voters, and in particular might be persuasive to swing voters.

My curiosity stems from reading the latest polls and my colleague Nate Cohn’s article on Saturday. This is how Nate summed up Biden’s standing in the race since his strong State of the Union speech on March 7: “It has gotten harder to see signs of any Biden bump. Taken together, new polls from Fox , CNBC and Quinnipiac suggested that the presidential race was essentially unchanged, with Mr. Trump still holding a narrow lead nationwide. The president’s approval rating doesn’t seem discernibly higher, either.”

Now, State of the Union speeches themselves rarely produce a bump. But Biden was a new man in March, with a sharper message, lots of campaigning, strong ads and any number of Trump comments to whack. Yet we enter April with Trump in a narrow lead.

Something is not working for Joe Biden right now. Trump is behind him in campaign money , tied up in court, making crazy comments and posting videos showing Biden hogtied. For all that, Biden doesn’t seem to have changed large numbers of minds. Are voters still listening to the president?

Previous presidents who lost re-election, including Trump, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, struggled to persuade voters they were effective and sympathetic. In their own ways, the three men were seen as all talk, no action, and that’s what some progressive Democrats and young voters think about Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza. While his administration is talking tougher about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the bombs keep falling on Gaza (and more American bombs are on the way) and the aid keeps being blocked from reaching starving people.

And it’s not just Gaza: It’s immigration, abortion rights and, especially, the economy. Nate Silver had a striking chart last week showing how “even as consumer and investor sentiment has improved, President Biden’s approval rating hasn’t , or at least it hasn’t by much .”

Right now, Biden doesn’t have the same galvanizing, persuasive political narrative for swing voters that he had in 2020 — I think Trump nostalgia is very real — nor does he have the results enough voters want. Some voters have already written him off because of his age. But I think the bigger threat to re-election is that more voters will stop listening to him if he doesn’t offer a stronger narrative and stronger results.