Highlights A thoughtful vaccination campaign is critical to ensure COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Social, behavioral, and communication science is essential to such a campaign. Meaningful messages from trusted spokespersons can crowd out misinformation. COVID-19 vaccines must be available at familiar, convenient locations that feel safe. Transparent decisions and public oversight mechanisms strengthen vaccine confidence.

There is an emerging consensus among public health advocates that combating obesity is best done by restructuring the environment rather than by stigmatizing individuals. Although feminist scholars have not been major participants in debates over antiobesity policy, recently there has been a move toward adopting the environmental account of obesity as a feminist solution because of its potential to respond to health inequalities along race, class, and gender lines. This article aims to trouble the embrace of the environmental approach by feminist scholars, however, and to resurrect and redirect feminist criticism toward attendant problems of moralism, backlash, and the surveillance and rehabilitation of poor women of color. Despite its overwhelming popularity among policy elites and health researchers, I argue that the environmental account of obesity is not likely to promote structural change and broad redistributions. Rather it makes problematic assumptions about the relationship between health and fat and about the efficacy of intervention strategies, masks moralism with health discourse, and legitimizes punitive, ineffective, and patronizing interventions.

All the recent attention to the so-called obesity epidemic provides a fascinating context for understanding interactions between civil rights consciousness and the ordinary lives of fat people, who both deploy and resist the ideological formations that make up our most basic presumptions about who deserves rights protections. This study of fat acceptance advocates asks how stigmatized people who are excluded from legal protections muster descriptions of themselves as deserving inclusion in antidiscrimination laws. Analysis of in-depth interviews with fat acceptance advocates from around the United States reveals elaborate techniques for managing social life and enacting legality that coexist with more narrowly framed and contradictory arguments for rights. Culturally dominant logics for reasoning about what persons deserve prefigure what is possible to say in defense of fat people, in many ways even for fat advocates themselves. And yet in their struggles to overcome the limitations of the presumptions they are given, fat advocates reveal deep tensions in our antidiscrimination ethics and hint at a new way to think about difference.

Sexual harassment abounds in academia. We know this from a 2018 report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (1). As members of the committee who authored that report,* we have presented its findings to colleges and universities around the country. It has been deeply gratifying to see so many leaders want to address sexual harassment in their institutions. But according to a large body of social science evidence, the strategies that many of these same leaders are pursuing simply don't work. Academia should lead and inspire change in other organizations. Instead, we have the highest rate of sexual harassment after the military (2). Several problems stand in the way of effective institutional response to sexual harassment: oversexualization of the problem, overreliance on fast fixes that fail to grapple with long histories of exclusion in the academy, and overemphasis on formal legal compliance. We need a radical redesign of anti-harassment efforts in higher education. This is a tall order, but decades of research can guide this work and brave leaders can implement it.

That vaccines do not cause autism is now a widely accepted proposition, though a few dissenters remain. An 8-year court process in the US federal vaccine injury compensation court ended in 2010 with rulings that autism was not an adverse reaction to vaccination. There were two sets of trials: one against the measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine and one against the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The MMR story is more widely known because of publicity surrounding the main proponent of an MMR–autism link, British doctor Andrew Wakefield, but the story of thimerosal in court is largely untold. This study examines the credibility battles and boundary work in the two cases, illuminating the sustaining world of alternative science that supported the parents, lawyers, researchers, and expert witnesses against vaccines. After the loss in court, the families and their advocates transformed their scientific arguments into an indictment of procedural injustice in the vaccine court. I argue that the very efforts designed to produce legitimacy in this type of lopsided dispute will be counter-mobilized as evidence of injustice, helping us understand why settling a scientific controversy in court does not necessarily mean changing anyone’s mind.

Recent legislation in California, Oregon, and Washington that tightened philosophical exemptions by means of informational requirements suggests that vaccine politics may be entering another phase, one in which immunization supporters may be able to counter increasing opt-out rates, particularly in states with recent outbreaks and politicians favoring science-based policies.

The last dozen years have seen a massive transnational mobilization of the legal, political, and research communities in response to the worrisome hypothesis that vaccines could have a link to childhood autism and other developmental conditions. Vaccine critics, some already organized and some composed of newly galvanized parents, developed an alternate world of internally legitimating studies, blogs, conferences, publications, and spokespeople to affirm a connection. When the consensus turned against the autism hypothesis, these structures and a committed membership base unified all the organizations in resistance. This article examines the relationship between mobilization based on science and the trajectory of legitimacy vaccine criticism has taken. I argue that vaccine critics have run up against the limits of legitimate scientific argument and are now in the curious position of both doubling down on credibility-depleting stances and innovating new and possibly resonant formulations.

Workplace wellness programs are written into law as exceptions to otherwise protective antidiscrimination provisions, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expands employers' ability to treat workers differently based on their health. Rather than assume that wellness programs promote health and save money, here I approach them as legally sanctioned discrimination. What exactly wellness discrimination might look like in practice across many contexts is an open question, but there is good reason to be wary of the power of wellness to create and reproduce hierarchy, to promote homogeneity, narrow-mindedness, and moralism about how to live one's life, and to cover for discrimination based on health, weight, income, age, pregnancy, and disability.