On Wednesday, the United Methodist Church repealed its 1984 ban on LGBTQ clergy with an overwhelming 692–51 vote by church leaders at its general conference. The conference, which ends on May 3, has also resulted in the church rolling back several other anti-LGBTQ policies, including bans on performing gay marriage and funding queer-friendly ministries. 

The passage of these measures heralded a new era for the church. At the convention in 2019, delegates, made up of both clergy and laypeople, voted 438 to 384 to affirm the bans struck down in this year’s conference and heightened penalties for breaking them. But 2024 marks the first convention after an ideological schism between conservative and progressive Methodists led some parishes to buck restrictions on LGBTQ worshippers while others doubled down. 

Between 2019 and 2023, one-quarter of US Methodist denominations disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church. As the progressive arm of the church gained strength, many conservative parishes disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church, clearing the path for progressives to reverse anti-LGBTQ bans with overwhelming support. 

Still, the fight for parity is not over. Wednesday’s repeal does not mandate that all parishes accept queer clergy. It would also apply only to Methodist churches in the US, since parishes from other countries control their own governance. Yet even this measured win sparked an enthusiastic reaction from the crowd. Advocates embraced and applauded teary-eyed, according to the Associated Press, and celebrations rang out outside the convention center. 

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, author of Just Faith: Reclaiming Progressive Christianity, wrote in a NBC News op-ed that these changes should mark a shift in the cultural understanding of queerness in religion. “We can put to rest the idea that religion and LGBTQ rights are inherently in conflict,” he wrote. “Just as positive views on LGBTQ rights have trended upward, so, too, have Christian groups evolved their theological understandings of human sexuality and gender identity.”

As a kid, I spent countless hours watching The Amanda Show, a sketch comedy series starring Amanda Bynes that aired on Nickelodeon from 1999 to 2002. The show was created by Dan Schneider, who went on to helm many of the channel’s most beloved series, including Drake and Josh and iCarly. In addition to providing plenty of laughs, it was a rare example of a children’s show that took the comedic talents of its young star seriously. But after watching the new docuseries Quiet on Set, I know my fond memories of watching The Amanda Show will never be the same. 

The four-part docuseries aired on Max and Investigation Discovery earlier this month, and a surprise fifth episode is in the works for next week. The show explores the dark side of Dan Schneider’s tenure at Nickelodeon, painting him as a temperamental, manipulative boss with a disturbing habit of inserting sexual innuendos into scenes with child actors. Details of Schneider’s conduct began to leak out in 2018, when Schneider left Nickelodeon amid allegations of abusive behavior. The New York Times reported in 2021 that an internal investigation had found Schneider was verbally abusive to staff, while a 2022 Business Insider investigation highlighted his controlling demeanor and sexism in the writers room. 

On set, Schneider’s crew included two now-convicted sex offenders. In 2004, Jason Handy, a production assistant, was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading no contest to performing lewd acts on a child, distributing sexually explicit material, and child exploitation. The same year, dialogue coach Brian Peck pleaded no contest to two charges related child sexual abuse against an anonymous child actor and was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Quiet on Set’s biggest bombshell is that Peck’s victim was Drake Bell, a star of Drake & Josh and a regular on The Amanda Show. 

The documentary chronicles the Schneider years at Nickelodeon through interviews with former cast and crew members, journalists who reported on the scandal, and the parents of child actors. It also resurfaces moments of inappropriate humor from Schneider’s shows that seem alarming in retrospect: In one scene, a 16-year-old Ariana Grande, a cast member on Schneider’s Victorious, attempts to “juice” a potato while moaning suggestively. 

The fourth episode, originally slated to be the last in the series, ends with Bell sharing how the abuse impacted him emotionally. In the last shots, we see Bell and his dad walking off the documentary set, then the camera cuts to a sunset. As the credits rolled, I felt a mix of anger and hopelessness. While the filmmakers had done a skillful job of laying out the allegations against Schneider, the show also left many questions unanswered. Schneider declined to be interviewed for the documentary, though it included a written statement from him, saying his content went through many levels of approval before it aired. (Nickelodeon provided a statement to the documentary saying it “investigates all formal complaints as part of our commitment to foster a safe and professional workplace.”) After the documentary, Schneider offered a lackluster mea culpa in a softball interview with a former iCarly cast member, where he muddled his apology with asides that his behavior was caused by “inexperience” and letting pressures get to him.

Nickelodeon’s decision to sever ties with Schneider was necessary and long overdue, but it’s unsettling to think that he can continue to live his life quietly without taking full accountability. And what cuts deeper is that so many people in the industry allowed such a toxic environment to fester—from the parents of child stars who failed to speak up to the industry insiders who wrote letters in support of Peck before his sentencing, including actor James Marsden.

Meanwhile, though Bell has rightfully received an outpouring of support for speaking out, the renewed good will toward the star treads a fine line. In 2021, Bell pleaded guilty to attempted child endangerment charges related to sexual conversations he had with a 15-year-old fan. In a victim impact statement, she claimed Bell groomed and sexually assaulted her multiple times. (Bell was charged only with attempted child endangerment and a misdemeanor for disseminating harmful material to a juvenile. He denies the allegations of sexual assault.) The documentary only mentions these allegations briefly in the context of Bell’s downward spiral after his own abuse, emphasizing that “he was not charged with doing anything physical.” 

The abuse on Nickelodeon happened before the eyes of an entire generation, tainting media intertwined with our childhood nostalgia. After Quiet on Set aired, emotions ran high online. “Jail is not enough!!!” wrote one X user, whose post received almost 5,000 likes. Social media users demanded that Drake Bell’s former costar, Josh Peck (no relation to Brian Peck), speak out. Bell released a statement saying that Josh Peck had personally reached out to him and asked fans to “take it a little easy on him.” On The View, host Sunny Hostin questioned Ariana Grande’s silence about the documentary, saying, “She is an adult now, so is silence complicity or not?” In the wake of this explosive reaction, Investigation Discovery announced that a bonus fifth episode of Quiet on Set would premiere on April 7.  The new episode, a discussion with former child actors moderated by Soledad O’Brien, is billed as “digging deeper into the crucial conversations the docuseries ignited and exploring the lingering questions left in their wake to provide further insight from the brave voices who’ve spoken out.” 

The decision to add a fifth episode felt like a tacit acknowledgement of the fact the final episode of the show had left many questions unanswered. But while the new episode is an opportunity to channel outrage into productive conversations about how to protect child actors from abuse, it may not answer every burning question. As viewers, there’s some uncertainty we have to accept: Public outrage should not come at the cost of victims’ decision to tell their stories if and when they’re ready. It’s possible we may never know everything that happened at Nickelodeon, or how every former child star was affected—and that’s okay. Justice might not come swiftly, and it may not look like what viewers expect. It might look like victims remaining nameless, going about their lives in private, and just trying to pick up the pieces. 

The Dartmouth men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of forming a union on Tuesday, in a move that could make them the first unionized group of college athletes. 

The players voted to join SEIU Local 560, which already represents some employees at the college. Their efforts to unionize began in earnest last September, when the team filed a petition to unionize with the National Labor Relations Board. In an opinion piece for the student newspaper, The Dartmouth, players Romeo Myrthil and Cade Haskins argue that they should be paid either with hourly wages comparable to other campus jobs or with scholarships, which would alleviate the need for students to juggle part-time jobs alongside athletic and academic commitments. They also want Dartmouth to be responsible for insurance deductibles and long-term disability costs for students who suffer serious injuries at games and practices.

Early last month, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the athletes should be considered school employees, clearing the way for the vote. 

The vote comes after mounting public and legal pressure for the NCAA to rethink its longstanding business model, which for more than a century allowed it to rake in huge profits off the backs of student-athletes who received little to no compensation. But even after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2021 that student athletes could be paid, only the very top players benefited from their newfound ability to get brand deals and corporate sponsorships. Unionizing could allow a greater number of college athletes to negotiate compensation with their universities. 

For months, Dartmouth has fought the players’ organizing attempt, allegedly telling them that unionizing could get them kicked out of the Ivy League or the NCAA and insisting that the players were students, not employees. A day before the vote, the NLRB threw out a request from the school to reconsider its ruling that the athletes are Dartmouth employees. 

While the vote is major step, the players still have a ways to go before officially unionizing. The school could file an objection with the NLRB, delaying negotiations until current students have graduated. Myrthil and Haskins told the Associated Press they hope that freshmen will carry on the fight.

Correction, March 5: An earlier version of this story misspelled Cade Haskins’ and Romeo Myrthil’s names. 

The Dartmouth men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of forming a union on Tuesday, in a move that could make them the first unionized group of college athletes. 

The players voted to join SEIU Local 560, which already represents some employees at the college. Their efforts to unionize began in earnest last September, when the team filed a petition to unionize with the National Labor Relations Board. In an opinion piece for the student newspaper, The Dartmouth, players Romeo Myrthil and Cade Haskins argue that they should be paid either with hourly wages comparable to other campus jobs or with scholarships, which would alleviate the need for students to juggle part-time jobs alongside athletic and academic commitments. They also want Dartmouth to be responsible for insurance deductibles and long-term disability costs for students who suffer serious injuries at games and practices.

Early last month, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the athletes should be considered school employees, clearing the way for the vote. 

The vote comes after mounting public and legal pressure for the NCAA to rethink its longstanding business model, which for more than a century allowed it to rake in huge profits off the backs of student-athletes who received little to no compensation. But even after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2021 that student athletes could be paid, only the very top players benefited from their newfound ability to get brand deals and corporate sponsorships. Unionizing could allow a greater number of college athletes to negotiate compensation with their universities. 

For months, Dartmouth has fought the players’ organizing attempt, allegedly telling them that unionizing could get them kicked out of the Ivy League or the NCAA and insisting that the players were students, not employees. A day before the vote, the NLRB threw out a request from the school to reconsider its ruling that the athletes are Dartmouth employees. 

While the vote is major step, the players still have a ways to go before officially unionizing. The school could file an objection with the NLRB, delaying negotiations until current students have graduated. Myrthil and Haskins told the Associated Press they hope that freshmen will carry on the fight.

Correction, March 5: An earlier version of this story misspelled Cade Haskins’ and Romeo Myrthil’s names.