Ask someone outside of Louisiana what they know about Southern University, and there is a good chance the conversation will eventually lead to HBCU culture and the Human Jukebox. And rightfully so. The Human Jukebox has earned its reputation through generations of hard work, discipline and excellence. It represents more than halftime entertainment; it is part of the heart of Southern University and HBCU culture. But after the Jukebox, what comes next? That is where Southern has a public relations problem.

Southern University is home to a nursing school that was named Best Nursing School in the United States by Nurse.org for the second consecutive year in 2026. The program also reported a 100% first-time pass rate on the 2025 American Academy of Nurse Practitioners certification examination. Accomplishments like those should be just as inseparable from Southern’s name as its band and culture.

Instead, Southern’s positive story is too often forced to compete with another narrative: housing shortages, unanswered questions, aging infrastructure, power outages and the familiar feeling among students that something else has gone wrong. The recent power outages made that especially difficult to ignore.

Southern lost power on Sept. 1, forcing classes to be canceled. Days later, another outage affected campus operations, eventually leading the university to close campus for multiple days and shift classes remotely. Students told local news stations about losing food, struggling without air conditioning and Wi-Fi, and trying to keep up with schoolwork while the campus dealt with electrical problems. Watching frustrated students explain their experiences to local reporters made me ask a simple question: Is this bad PR? At first, I thought the answer was obvious. Communication during the outage felt too slow. Students wanted to know when power would return, whether classes would continue and when campus life would return to normal. When information is limited, rumors fill the gap. One person says the power is back. Someone else says it went back out. Students begin relying on each other before they rely on the institution. But learning more about what happens behind the scenes complicated my original opinion.

The people responsible for communicating cannot simply release whatever information is circulating. They may be waiting on utility companies, facilities officials, emergency management or university leadership to confirm what is actually happening. Publishing an estimate that turns out to be wrong can create even more confusion. That does not mean communication should stop.

There is a difference between saying, “We don’t know,” and saying nothing. Even when there is no new information, students can still be told that there is no new information. An update saying officials are still waiting for confirmation, explaining what is currently known and telling students when to expect another update creates something extremely important during a crisis: certainty about the communication process, even when there is uncertainty about the situation itself.

But the more I thought about “Bad PR?” the more I realized Southern’s problem is bigger than how quickly an email goes out. Public relations cannot turn the electricity back on. It cannot build a residence hall overnight. It cannot make every office answer its phone. It cannot win a football game. At some point, an institution’s reputation has to be supported by the institution itself.

Southern entered Fall 2026 with campus housing completely occupied and its housing waitlist at capacity. The university is responding by moving forward with new housing that is expected to add approximately 850 beds. That investment matters. But it also represents a larger pattern Southern cannot afford to continue: waiting until a problem becomes part of the student experience before the solution becomes visible. Southern cannot continuously rely on the resilience of its students as part of its operating model.

There is almost a collective “struggle bus” mentality that can develop on campus. Something is broken. Something is delayed. Another office is not answering. Another unexpected problem appears. But at least we are still here, getting our education and figuring it out. Southern certainly develops character. But students should not have to develop character by constantly learning to navigate problems that an evolving university should be working to eliminate.

That is especially important because Southern does not exist in isolation. Across Baton Rouge sits LSU, one of the most recognizable universities in the state. Comparisons between the two institutions are almost inevitable, whether those comparisons are fair or not. Southern should not try to become LSU. It should become the strongest possible version of Southern.

There is something different about attending an HBCU. There is value in entering classrooms where students who look like you can be recognized for their intelligence without first having to prove that they belong there. There is value in being surrounded by people who may come from completely different backgrounds while sharing an experience rooted in Black history, culture and achievement. Southern has that. It has legacy. It has culture. It has nationally recognized programs. It has students worth celebrating. It has one of the most recognizable bands in college culture. The problem is not that Southern lacks a brand. Southern’s problem is keeping that legacy intact while building an institution capable of carrying it into the future. Construction around campus shows that change is happening. New housing is coming. Infrastructure is being addressed. But physical construction cannot be the only visible evidence of progress. Students should be able to experience that evolution in customer service, communication, technology, facilities and the everyday systems they depend on.

The Human Jukebox does not need less recognition. The rest of Southern needs to reach the same standard of excellence that makes the Jukebox so easy to celebrate. If Southern wants to control its narrative nationally, the answer cannot simply be better marketing whenever something goes wrong. Southern already has the story.

The nursing students achieving nationally recognized results are part of the story. The students earning degrees are part of the story. The culture is part of the story. The Jukebox is part of the story. The history and generations of alumni are part of the story.

But so are the outages, housing frustrations and institutional problems students experience. Public relations can decide how a story is communicated, but it cannot permanently separate reputation from reality. Maybe Southern does not have a “bad PR” problem after all. Maybe Southern has an institution with an incredibly strong brand that is sometimes being asked to carry more weight than it should. If Southern truly wants to control its narrative, that work cannot begin and end with a press release. It has to begin within.

Based on reporting by Southern University – SouthernDIGEST.

By Jordan Meadows, Staff Writer

Dan Bullock was 15 years old when he was killed in Vietnam on June 7, 1969, making the Goldsboro native the youngest American service member to die in the war.

Bullock was born Dec. 21, 1953, in Goldsboro and lived in North Carolina until he was about 12, when his mother died, and he moved to Brooklyn to live with his father.

Family members later said he’d talked about wanting to become a pilot, a police officer, a firefighter or a Marine. Unsatisfied with his living situation in New York and discouraged by the lack of opportunity he saw around him, Bullock went looking for a faster path forward—and told his father that enlisting seemed like the quickest way to get an education.

In September 1968, at 14 years old, Bullock walked into the Marine Corps recruiting station at Albee Square in downtown Brooklyn. At 5-foot-9 and roughly 160 pounds, he was big enough to pass for 18, and he had altered the year on his birth certificate from 1953 to 1949.

Recruiters never questioned it. He enlisted on Sept. 18, 1968, and his family found out only when he came home with the signed paperwork in his hand.

Bullock reported to Parris Island, South Carolina, assigned to Platoon 3039, and struggled through parts of the 13-week training regimen before fellow recruits helped pull him through. He graduated from boot camp on Dec. 10, 1968, eleven days before his 15th birthday.

Private First Class Bullock arrived in South Vietnam on May 18, 1969, assigned as a rifleman in 2nd Squad, 2nd Platoon, Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division. His posting was An Hoa Combat Base in Quang Nam Province, a forward hub surrounded by some of the most contested terrain in the country. Bullock kept largely to himself, and while his fellow Marines didn’t know his real age, several sensed something was different about him.

On the evening of June 6, Bullock had been assigned cleaning duty, but took another Marine’s place on the night watch near the airstrip after that Marine was wounded. Shortly after midnight, North Vietnamese Army sappers breached the perimeter wire and launched a coordinated assault with rockets, mortars, and small arms. Accounts of exactly what happened next differ.

Fox Company accounts hold that sappers crawled beneath the wire and hurled a satchel charge through the firing slot of Bullock’s bunker, an explosion that killed Bullock; other accounts describe Bullock being killed by small arms fire on the perimeter.

Bullock’s company commander, Capt. Robert Kingrey, described the young Marine’s actions during the attack in a letter home.

“Dan immediately realized that the attack was stronger than usual and that the ammunition supply was becoming depleted,” Kingrey wrote. “He rushed to get more ammunition for his unit. He constantly exposed himself to enemy fire in order to keep the company supplied with the ammunition needed to hold off the attack.”

Bullock had been in Vietnam for 21 days.

A week after his death, the New York Times broke the story of his real age, and the Defense Department subsequently confirmed Bullock was the youngest of the roughly 58,000 Americans killed during the war.

His remains were returned to Goldsboro and buried at Elmwood Cemetery with full military honors, but no headstone marked the grave. It stayed that way for 31 years, until television talk show host Sally Jessy Raphael learned of the unmarked plot in 2000 and purchased a headstone. NYPD officers, state troopers from four states, and two veteran motorcycle groups escorted a 600-mile caravan from Brooklyn to Goldsboro for the dedication ceremony.

In 2003, the New York City Council renamed a stretch of Lee Avenue in Brooklyn—the street where Bullock had lived—as PFC Dan Bullock Way.

North Carolina dedicated a state highway historical marker near his childhood home on West Ash Street in Goldsboro, and the entrance to Elmwood Cemetery in southwest Goldsboro was also named PFC Dan Bullock Way.

His name is inscribed on Panel 23W, Line 96 of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington.

Based on reporting by The Carolinian.

This video features Jess Jackson from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management discussing the historical roots of cannabis prohibition. The conversation delves into how early laws and enforcement surrounding cannabis were significantly influenced by racist ideologies. Jackson explains the systemic nature of these discriminatory practices and their lasting impact.

The discussion highlights the disproportionate targeting of minority communities under prohibition laws. It aims to shed light on the injustice of past policies and the ongoing efforts to address the legacy of these racist foundations within the cannabis industry and regulatory frameworks.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts. 

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts. 

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

By Austin Gage, California Black Media

California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.

The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.

First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.

Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California. 

The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.  

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition. 

Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.

“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.

No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.

“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.

A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.

A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.