Daily Archives: March 20, 2024

A stunning incident experienced by a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom delegation during an official visit to Saudi Arabia this month should go neither unnoticed nor spared from serious reflection. Ironically, it confirmed in a pointed way the kingdoms practice of infringing on religious beliefs.

During a visit that began March 3, the delegation was scheduled to tour Diriyah, the original home of the royal family and location of a UNESCO World Heritage site, on the outskirts of Riyadh.

Before entering the site, Saudi authorities requested commission Chair Abraham Cooper, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, to remove his kippah, or yarmulke, while there or any time he was in public. Cooper refused, and the delegation consequently cut short its visit and left Saudi Arabia.

In a telephone interview last week, Cooper told me that, as an observant Jew, he had respectfully refused to remove his kippah. Saudi officials, he said, told him they could not allow public displays of any faith other than Islam and proceeded to consult other Saudi authorities by phone. Ten minutes later, Cooper said, he and the delegation were escorted off the premises.

Cooper said he advised his delegation that since he was prevented from wearing his religious head covering, he would leave Saudi Arabia. The commissions vice chair, the Rev. Frederick A. Davie, a senior adviser at the Union Theological Seminary, said, Im leaving, too, Cooper said. The next morning, the entire delegation departed the kingdom.

Cooper said he had worn his kippah with no problems in the delegations earlier meetings at the Saudi Foreign Ministry, Interior Ministry and Human Rights Commission. Since the incident at Diriyah, Cooper said he has heard privately from Saudi Foreign Ministry officials who, while not directly apologizing for what happened, acknowledged the discomfort caused by the incident.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington issued a brief statement described as a clarification on Coopers denied entry to Diriyah. This unfortunate incident, wrote the embassy, was the result of a misunderstanding of internal protocols. The statement went on to say that the matter was escalated to senior officials, and HRH the Ambassador i.e., Her Royal Highness Reema bint Bandar, Saudi Arabias ambassador to the United States had the opportunity to speak with the Rabbi. The matter was resolved but we respect his decision to not continue the tour. The statement concluded, We look forward to welcoming him back to the Kingdom.

As well they should. The commissions work, established by Congress, is to monitor and independently report on and promote religious freedom in the world. The Diriyah incident strikes at the heart of internationally adopted religious rights, including individuals freedom to wear religious symbols and attire.

In a statement on his departure, Cooper added another dimension: Especially in a time of raging antisemitism, being asked to remove my kippah made it impossible for us from USCIRF to continue our visit.

With or without raging antisemitism, the U.S. delegation might have encountered the same treatment.

The U.S. State Department leaves no ambiguity with respect to religious freedoms in Saudi Arabia. The departments travel advisory states:

Islam is the official religion of the country and is present in all aspects of life in Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities do not permit criticism of Islam or Muslim religious figures, including on social media. The government prohibits the public practice of religions other than Islam. Public display of non-Islamic religious articles, such as crosses and Bibles, is not permitted.

I know from visits to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s that restrictions on public non-Islamic religious observances were strictly applied.

That, however, should not discourage current efforts to work with the Saudi government on the kind of issue that forced the Commission on International Religious Freedom to leave the country. In fact, the episode only reinforces the need to press the Saudis to review and refine their stated 2030 vision of a new and vibrant society. A country that denies its people and visitors the right to believe according to their conscience, that encourages harassment and intimidation, and that makes people subject to discrimination, arrests or prosecution because of their beliefs is not visionary but a foe of religious freedom.

The Diriyah demarcation was a Saudi misstep in the wrong direction. A do-over might help undo the damage.

Read the original here:

Opinion | U.S. religious freedom effort gets an unwelcome message in Saudi Arabia - The Washington Post

A majority of the worlds population has experienced a decline in press freedom in recent years, according to a UN report. In east Africa, the results are mixed and debatable.

In Rwanda, both international press freedom rankings and journalists on the ground say press freedom has increased over the past 10 years. In neighbouring Uganda, both international rankings and local journalists say media freedom has declined. In Kenya, rankings reflect declining freedom over the past decade, but reporters acknowledge they have more freedom than their counterparts in Uganda and Rwanda.

In our roles as associate professors in journalism and mass communication, we interviewed and surveyed more than 500 journalists in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya. We learned that the evolution and current state of press freedom in the region is complex. In our book, Press Freedom and the (Crooked) Path Toward Democracy: Lessons from Journalists in East Africa, we provide an updated state of press freedom in these three countries.

We argue that much of the academic research that classifies global media systems has overlooked the worlds most developing nations, and those that have included developing nations have failed to consider their historical contexts. They have worked from a misguided premise that nations develop in a linear fashion from non-democracy to democracy and from a restricted press to a free press. In reality, press freedom and democracy ebb and flow.

We examine the impact of social, political, legal and economic factors on media in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya to help with understanding media systems outside the western world.

We chose to study these three countries because they represent varying stages of development and democracy building. Rwanda, which experienced a genocide in 1994, is in relatively early (though fast paced) stages of reconstruction. Uganda, which experienced a civil war in the 1980s and unrest in the 1990s but arguably not to the extent of Rwandas genocide, can be considered in a middle stage of development. Kenya, which has remained largely peaceful, can be understood as being in a more advanced stage of development.

In Rwanda, despite 30 years of economic, social and media progress and development, lingering impacts from the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi permeate the countrys media. Multiple laws limit free expression in the name of genocide prevention, and international press freedom rankings indicate the nation is not free.

Yet, we found that many Rwandan journalists believe that they have a great deal of freedom and that outsiders dont consider the countrys history when evaluating the media. Outsiders, for example, hear that Rwandan journalists cannot criticise the president or high-ranking government officials and immediately think there is no press freedom. But local journalists say they dont feel oppressed. They feel relatively free to choose their story topics. They dont want to publish critical stories because they want to foster peace.

Journalists believe their role is to act as unifiers and right the wrongs of their predecessors who exacerbated the genocide. Public trust in the media remains high, according to focus groups conducted with members of the general public. In Rwanda, there appears to be a relationship between press freedom and distance from conflict. That is, the more time that passes since the country experienced war, the more press freedom it has.

Prioritising social good over media rights has helped the country unify and develop, but over the long term we see signs that Rwandas linear path towards increasing democracy and press freedom may not continue. Rather, prioritising peace at the cost of press freedom could limit development and reinforce existing authoritarian power structures.

In Uganda, the relationship between press freedom and distance from conflict has been less linear. Some media restrictions have lessened and others have worsened.

Despite a sustained period of peace after conflict with the Lords Resistance Army in the northern part of the country that began in the 1980s, press freedom is not increasing as time passes. Overall, journalists in the country largely agree with the international perception that theyre restricted and that the situation is worsening the longer President Yoweri Museveni remains in power. Journalists in Uganda perceive their press freedom to be lower than journalists in neighbouring countries. They also have a more pessimistic outlook.

Government interference, some of which stems from the conflict and some thats new, remains pervasive. Worn down by government intimidation and repressive laws, coupled with low pay and lack of necessary equipment, some journalists told us they had turned to unethical behaviour, such as acting as spies in the newsroom.

Kenya is home to the freest media environment. Its also the only one in our study that has seen changes in presidential leadership in recent years. But just because a nation regularly holds elections doesnt mean the path to democratisation and media freedom is smooth.

External measures indicate that Kenya has more press freedom than Uganda and Rwanda, and journalists in the country perceive this to be true. However, data show ups and downs of media freedom that have mirrored varying political administrations and events, including spurts of post-election violence. These ebbs and flows are largely due to politicians or powerful members of society who share ideological goals or have financial interests like owning major media houses and influencing coverage.

Despite the challenges, journalists attribute Kenyas state of press freedom to the vast international connections the country and its leaders have. An empowered civil society which stems from both a space for dissent given by public officials, and the culture and spirit of Kenyans has promoted the growth of human rights, including media freedoms.

After a nuanced examination of the factors that affect the media in each of these countries, our book lists a set of factors that affect press freedom and democracy building.

Specifically, we believe each countrys distance from conflict, political benchmarks, international linkages and civil society strength are central to understanding its degree of press freedom, development and democratisation.

While these factors are not the only elements that influence media landscapes, they are a starting point for better understanding and theorising about press freedom environments.

A free and independent press allows the public to hold leaders accountable, make informed decisions and access a diversity of opinions. This makes it important to accurately understand how free varying media landscapes are, and why.

Read the rest here:

Press freedom in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda: what journalists have to say about doing their jobs - The Conversation Indonesia

Shannon Keith sends letters to animal testing labs around the country offering to take any animals they no longer use for research. She rarely gets a reply.

They deserve a second chance at life when theyre done with them, said Keith, an animal rights lawyer who founded Beagle Freedom Project in 2010 to rescue and rehome animals used in research.

Beagles are the most-used breed for testing, though Beagle Freedom Project, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit, rescues all animals.

John Riner the owner of Animal Health Innovations, a dog and cat testing facility in Nowata, Okla. had been receiving Keiths letters for years, but in 2021, he replied to her for the first time.

As a contract researcher for flea and tick products, Riner would euthanize lab animals a common practice in the industry if they had health issues or couldnt find a home after testing. Riner said he kept the test animals alive for as long as he could.

He began giving Beagle Freedom Project the dogs and cats he no longer needed for research purposes, after a Department of Agriculture inspector flagged concerns over the poor condition of some of Riners senior dogs.

I did a little soul-searching, and I didnt want to euthanize any dogs, said Riner, 69. Its just hard to find a home for that many.

Riner had about 150 dogs on his property at a time, and he would reuse them for experiments rather than euthanize them, he said. When dogs were not involved in a study, which generally lasted between 60 to 90 days, he kept them outdoors.

Dogs are designed to withstand weather, he said. Dogs werent meant to live with man; man created that.

He said he believes animal testing is important to ensure products are safe and effective.

Yes, the dogs go through slight discomfort, Riner said. Were not mistreating animals.

Keith and her team were delighted to hear from Riner.

We started doing rescues at his facility in Oklahoma, Keith said. When he has groups of dogs and cats, well go there and get them and place them in homes.

Keith said that since launching her organization, she has rescued about 3,400 animals, including those at Riners facility.

Even though were on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to using animals in research, I was glad that they could do that and give these dogs a quality of life toward the end, Riner said.

After visiting Riners facility a few times, Keith took note of his 30-acre property, which has several ponds and sprawling fields.

Its a gorgeous piece of land, Keith said.

She thought it would be the perfect place for an animal sanctuary. A few months ago, she pitched the idea to Riner.

I assumed he was going to laugh me off the phone, Keith said.

To her surprise, he told her he would think about it, as he was hoping to retire. He came back with an offer to sell her his business along with his land, which she declined. She offered instead to buy the property and not the business and after some negotiations, he accepted.

As part of the deal, Riner surrendered his contract research license and committed to no longer testing on animals. He also gave Keith custody of the more than 200 cats and dogs on his property.

I was ready to retire, and the market itself has kind of gone through a post-covid slow-down, Riner said.

Plus, he added, I appreciate Beagle Freedom for what they do.

The sale was finalized on Feb. 8, and the testing facility was shut down. Since then, Keith and her team have been transforming the property which they called Freedom Fields into a rehabilitation site for former lab animals, many of whom are scared and anxious, and have health issues including seizures, arthritis and cataracts.

They are very afraid of any noise theyve never heard before. Their very first instinct is to run, said Keith, adding that every dog has a GPS tracker on their collar in case they bolt.

Keiths plan is to open a senior dog center on the property, with orthopedic beds, water treadmills and ramps to help older pups who spent their lives as test subjects regain strength and learn socialization skills before they are rehomed.

Our ultimate goal, of course, is to get them into homes, and until that happens, they are going to live there in the most luxury they could ever have, Keith said.

She also plans to create a space that caters to cats, as well as an education center.

We want the public to come. We want to take them around to meet the survivors and teach them about animal testing, Keith said.

In addition to rescuing and rehoming lab animals, Beagle Freedom Project also focuses on advocacy. Its Beagle Freedom Bill which requires labs to offer healthy dogs and cats for adoption once experiments have ended has been passed in 13 states, including California, Maryland and Virginia. The organization is working to make the bill federal law.

Beagle Freedom Project also created a free app called Cruelty Cutter, which helps consumers scan products to see whether they have been tested on animals.

Since the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 was passed in December 2022 allowing the use of alternatives to animal testing to investigate the safety and efficacy of new drugs Keith said she is hopeful that the animal testing industry will continue to decline.

In the meantime, Freedom Fields will be a haven for animals that have been abused and traumatized in laboratories, she said.

This has never been done, Keith said. Nobody has ever closed down an animal testing facility and turned it into a rehab sanctuary.

Renovations on the property are underway.

We have a lot of work to do. We are a small nonprofit, our budget is small, but weve got dedicated employees and volunteers, said Keith, noting that her organization is mostly funded by individual donations.

Emily Clayton, a rescue manager for Beagle Freedom Project, moved from Los Angeles to Nowata in February to live on the property.

Its been amazing, said Clayton, 35. Theyre getting much better care than they were before, and were making such positive changes every day.

About 127 dogs and cats have been spayed and neutered, and volunteers are working to get all the animals healthy so they can find forever homes. To date, more than 40 animals are being fostered, and 16 have been adopted.

Its the most rewarding thing ever, Clayton said.

Original post:

She bought an animal testing site and turned it into a rehab sanctuary - The Washington Post

The University of Wisconsin-Madison waived more than $4,000 in security and event fees for an event hosted by Wisconsin Young Americans for Freedom on March 11 after a lawsuit threat from conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

In a letter to university administration from March 11, YAF and WILL argued that security fees assessed for Michael Knowles were unprecedented and an attempt to limit YAFs free speech rights.

But records, including those from YAF events, show security fees were assessed for past events. Although, UW has robust criteria for determining security fees for student groups, whether or not UW waives the fees is inconsistent across events.

YAF hosted Michael Knowles, a conservative commentator from The Daily Wire, at Memorial Union on March 13.

According to university policy and campus event contracts, police officers and/or private security may be required at any event using university facilities. The RSO is responsible for costs associated with required police and private security service.

The security cost for the Michael Knowles event was based on risk assessment criteria, later forwarded to YAF and included in the complaint letter.

The risk assessment criteria, which was included in YAFs complaint, tallies points for several estimated risk factors, such as estimated attendance, access to the event from the public and alcohol consumption at the event.

YAF tallied points in several categories, including significant security/safety problems and general problems at sponsored events in the last two years, which includes instances like vandalism, overcrowding, physical altercations and police calls to prior events.

The group also scored points by opening the event to the public.

Based on the total of these points and the venue for the event, minimum security requirements were established, including the number of required UWPD officers and professional security.

YAF was informed on March 1 that they would have to pay over $4,000 in security fees that included costs for six police officers, one police supervisor, a metal detector and more security personnel.

UW hosts multiple left wing speakers some of whom are very controversial but there is no indication that UW has ever charged security fees for these events, the letter said. It did not provide evidence to support the claim that security fees are not assessed for other events.

Enjoy what you're reading? Get content from The Daily Cardinal delivered to your inbox

Harrison Wells, YAF chairman, also questioned the security charges.

We think it's absolutely absurd that we should be treated differently than other clubs, and other groups on campus who bring in controversial speakers, Wells told the Cardinal. We're not going to be paying this absurd amount of money.

Kelly Tyrrell, UW-Madison Director of Media Relations and Strategic Communications, defended the university, saying it had previously provided support for the appearances of YAF-hosted speakers Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh.

UW-Madison is a fierce supporter of the exchange of ideas and has welcomed a variety of speakers with diverse viewpoints to campus, particularly at the invitation of registered student organizations, Tyrrell said.

But records obtained by The Daily Cardinal show that other organizations have directly paid for security in the past. The records show that, when invoiced for security fees of around $400 for security, an organization that held an April 2023 event at Memorial Union had to pay their own fees.

UW-Madison charged similar security fees at a rate of $24.27 per hour for at least five other events held at Memorial Union since September 2023, according to a source with knowledge of the charges.

Event security details from another student organization event from April 2023.

In fall of 2022, YAF was similarly charged approximately $400 for security fees for an event with Matt Walsh, but this also included over $480 in discounts, thereby eliminating any charge for security, according to WILL. These discounts appear to be for other event costs, such as microphones or event space, and not for security.

Security fees assessed for YAF's fall 2022 Matt Walsh event.

Yet, YAF has had security fees waived before with minimal explanation.

When YAF hosted Shapiro last fall, security costs for the event also cost the university approximately $2,500 and CSC contracted services cost the university approximately $4,000. However, both costs were discounted from the invoice, according to budget documents provided in WILLs letter. These fees were automatically deducted from the Shapiro budget, according to Wells.

It is unclear why security costs were assessed and then discounted for the Shapiro event.

Discounted security charges for YAF Ben Shapiro event from Nov., 2023.

In its response letter to WILL on March 14, UW-Madison said it would drop the $4,000 security fee for the Knowles event because of the tight timeframe between the complaint and the event itself, even though it said YAF had previously agreed to pay the charges.

Solely to ensure that the speaker event moves forward in this tight timeframe, the contract is being revised to remove charges for costs related to the extensive security protocols including those that YAF specifically requested and agreed to pay for, as well as those identified by UWPD as appropriate, the letter read.

The universitys response letter also indicated it disagreed with many of WILLs and YAFs claims in the complaint, despite removing all fees for the event.

While the university disputes many of the positions you assert in your letter, the timing of your expressed concerns in relation to the event leaves little opportunity for debate on the matter without negatively impacting the proposed event, the letter read.

When asked to explain why UW-Madison waived security fees for the Shapiro and Knowles events while charging them for other organizations, Tyrrell said that each event has been managed on a case-by-case basis, which has, in the past balanced group requests, the specifics of the venue and UWPDs security assessments.

We continue to assess and improve these efforts, Tyrrell added.

Previous conservative speaker events saw protests near the event sites, including during Walshs and Shapiros visits.

The Daily Cardinal has been covering the University and Madison community since 1892. Please consider giving today.

Noe Goldhaber is the college news editor and former copy chief for the Daily Cardinal. She is a statistics major and has reported on a wide range of campus issues. Follow her on Twitter at @noegoldhaber.

Gabriella Hartlaub is an arts editor for the Daily Cardinal. She also reports state politics and life & style stories. Follow her on Twitter at @gabihartlaub.

Read the rest here:

Young Americans for Freedom said UW-Madison's security fees were 'unprecedented.' Records show that's not the full ... - Daily Cardinal

Formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America

Washington, DC Today, anti-abortion extremist and Trump endorsee Bernie Moreno won the GOP primary to represent Ohio in the U.S. Senate, pitting him against reproductive freedom champion Senator Sherrod Brown in November.

Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement in response:

We knew this primary would advance an anti-reproductive freedom extremist, and Bernie Moreno is that and morehes a rubber-stamp for Trumps national abortion ban and the exact opposite of what Ohioans want in a leader. They deserve better, and theyll get it by reelecting Senator Sherrod Brown.

###

For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levelsincluding access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leavefor everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.

Press Release National Mar 19, 2024

Read more:

Responds to Outcome in Ohio GOP Senate Primary - Reproductive Freedom for All - Reproductive Freedom for All

The upcoming presidential election will feature crucial policy debates on issues of importance to Americans, most notably the border and the economy. But Novembers contest is also shaping up to be uniquely centered on existential themes and civilizational questionsincluding the candidates sharply divergent views of freedom and democracy.

Just as he did in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump has grounded his campaign in a hopeful and optimistic vision for Americas future based on adherence to traditional American values. Trumps Make America Great Again slogan reflects his belief that the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights key among them freedom and equality before the law are the keys to building a prosperous and just society.

Joe Biden has relied heavily on overtures to freedom and democracy in his re-election bid. (He has largely replaced equality with equity.) But as his policy agenda over the last four years has shown, Bidens ideas of freedom and democracy are fundamentally different than those of most Americans.

What is becoming clear to voters is that Joe Biden and his legion of far-left enablers are invoking freedom and democracy to usurp the original freedoms outlined in the Constitution. In their place, Democrats are working to impose a new and deeply sinister set of freedoms that strike at the heart of American democracy: freedom to abortion-on-demand, freedom to disenfranchise the American voter, freedom to indoctrinate American children with sexually explicit material, freedom to censor dissenting political ideas, freedom to persecute ones ideological enemies, and a host of other radical policy goals.

Bidens State of the Union Address on March 7 perfectly illustrated this fact. What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack, both at home and overseas, at the very same time, Biden warned in the speech.

Biden is ultimately correct in his stark assessment of the threat to American freedombut not for the reasons he thinks.

Of the 14 times Biden used the word freedom in the State of the Union earlier this month, four were used in the context of reproductive freedomor the freedom of a woman to abort her child with no restrictions during any month of pregnancy.

One use of the term was in the context of the so-called Freedom to Vote Act, a Democrat bill that would deprive states of the ability to run their own elections and allow leftists in Washington, D.C. to trample election security and redistrict Republicans out of power. The bill would ban Voter ID laws, prohibit states from cleaning up voter rolls to remove deceased voters and ensure that shady ballot harvesting practices become even more widespread.

Biden then used the word freedom five additional times to warn of vague conservative assaults and attacks on freedoms, which he left conspicuously undefined.

Biden and his left-wing allies have also invoked language of liberty and freedom to defend hot-button left-wing priorities like Critical Race Theory (CRT) in K-12 schools, transgender men competing in womens sports, and using the police power of the federal government to unconstitutionally target Christians, conservatives, and the political opponents of the Democrat Party.

At the same time, Biden is directly responsible for historically high inflation, plummeting wages, and soaring energy priceseroding Americans actual freedom to achieve self-determination and financial independence.

The Biden administration is also importing millions of illegal aliens into American communities through their open border policies. This imperils Americans freedom from fear by allowing violent criminals to roam American streets, while also undermining Americans democratic representation by creating ample opportunity for illegals to vote in elections.

Biden and his Department of Justice are also working overtime to imprison Donald Trump, Bidens chief political opponent, posing a direct threat to Americans freedom to choose their own leaders the very cornerstone of democracy.

Of course, the warped vision of freedom advanced by Biden and other Democrats is completely out of step with the freedoms envisioned by our Founding Fathers nearly 250 years ago. And today, a resounding majority of Americans firmly stand against it.

Polling indicates that more than seven in 10 Americans oppose abortion after 15 weeks and nearly 80 percent of Americans reject Bidens policy of abortion on demand.

Meanwhile, 80 percent of Americans support voter ID requirementsa measure generally opposed by Democrats in Washington.

American parents also remain gravely concerned about the influence of inappropriate sexual, racial, and partisan content in their childrens classrooms. And the American people overwhelmingly support our nations longstanding constitutional right to speak and worship freely and without fear of persecution.

As the country prepares for a historic campaign cycle this fall, voters are increasingly coming to see that this election is a choice not only between two candidates and two presidents, but also between two visions, two philosophies, and two wildly incompatible views of American freedom.

But perhaps even more importantly, as Election Day approaches, more and more voters are coming to see that Joe Biden is not a heroic defender of American freedom and democracy, but rather the biggest threat to those ideals.

Aaron Flanigan is the pen name of a writer in Washington, D.C.

See more here:

Biden Redefines Freedom and Democracy - AMAC Official Website - Join and Explore the Benefits

Freedom was not able to break out of their rough patch on Tuesday as the team picked up their third straight loss. They fell 7-3 to the Hibriten Panthers. The result was an unpleasant reminder to Freedom of the 11-2 defeat they experienced in the pair's previous head-to-head fixture back in April of 2023.

Freedom saw two different players step up and record at least one hit. One of them was GAVIN CAMPBELL, who scored a run while going 1-for-3.

On Hibriten's side, Julius Martin made a splash no matter where he played. He looked comfortable on the mound, pitching four innings while giving up just one earned (and one unearned) run off two hits. Martin was also solid in the batter's box, scoring a run while going 3-for-3.

Freedom's loss ended a three-game streak of wins at home and dropped them to 3-5. As for Hibriten, the victory got them back to even at 4-4.

Freedom will head out on the road to face off against South Caldwell at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Freedom is strutting in with some hitting muscle, as they've averaged 7.3 runs per game this season. As for Hibriten, they will be playing at home against West Caldwell at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday. West Caldwell is coming into the match with four straight defeats on the road, meaning Hibriten will have to defend against a squad hungry for a win.

Article generated by infoSentience based on data entered on MaxPreps

Read more here:

Freedom snaps three-game streak of wins at home - MaxPreps

DePauw University faculty met for their monthly meeting via Zoom at 4 p.m. on March 4. With over 100 faculty and administrative members in attendance, the meeting covered a wide range of topics, including merit pay, Senate Bill 202, the use of donor funds, and more.

Motions

Chair of Faculty Dr. David Guinee opened the meeting with information about three motions put forth by faculty members. The first motion, put forth by Professor Gregory Schwipps, sought to adjust the wording of DePauws Religious Holy Days Policy. Schwipps argued that the policy was slightly outdated, as it mentioned an office that no longer exists at DePauw. He also suggested adding mentions of other offices that students can turn to with questions or concerns about the Holy Days policy. This motion passed with 69 votes in favor, 2 votes opposing, and 0 abstentions.

The second motion was put forth by the Faculty Priority and Governance Committee, led by Dr. Howard Pollack-Milgate, and requested that faculty endorse compensation based on rank and years of experience rather than merit pay. Dr. Pollack-Milgate noted that this motion would endorse this concept as a principle for discussion, rather than an established rule. There was much confusion about the meaning and ramifications of this motion, which prompted faculty members discussion for several minutes before voting. The motion passed with 44 votes in favor, 32 votes opposing, and 17 abstentions.

The final motion of the session was put forth by Dr. Kevin Howley and was seconded by Professor Richard Cameron. The motion asked faculty to approve a statement opposing Indiana Senate Bill 202, which Dr. Howley viewed as a threat to academic freedom in Indiana. President Dr. Lori White also shared that the DePauw administration is opposed to this bill, in line with the position of the universitys lobbying body. Faculty members passed this bill with an overwhelming 82 votes in favor, 2 votes opposing, and 5 abstentions.

Committee Reports

Following these motions, faculty committees reported on their announcements and upcoming motions, before taking questions from their fellow faculty members. The University Strategic Planning committee, led by Dr. Joe Heithaus, shared updates about capacity building, noting that the committee will continue to push for DePauw to reduce its endowment spending from around 7% to 5% or less.

After Dr. Heithauss report, one professor queried if the push for reduced endowment spending would lead to further budget cuts to departments. Vice President for Finances and Administration Andrea Young responded that DePauw would focus on flattening non-salary overhead budgets in the next academic year, but that cuts would not go beyond what has already been communicated with faculty.

Another professor voiced concerns about endowment allocation, sharing that she feared alumni donations were being misplaced or misused by administration. These concerns were backed by another professor, who noted his alleged experience with Asher Grant funds being diverted from their designated departments. VP Young responded, insisting that this institution has never misused donor funds. Another professor voiced concerns that the university was operating in bad faith with [its] donors, before the next committee shared their reports.

Remarks

Once committee reports were complete, President White, who was joining from Washington, D.C., shared her remarks. She shared information about the recent Board of Trustees meeting and addressed concerns about last semesters cybersecurity incident before elaborating on the American Council on Education conference that she was attending in D.C. Major topics of discussion at the conference included the future of higher education, transparency and public relations, accessibility for transfer students, freedom of expression, and DEI initiatives.

President White also discussed the recent Lily Endowment Proposal, which DePauw University and the City of Greencastle have submitted. This proposal includes plans for development of Seminary Street, downtown improvements, an incubator fund for small businesses, and the addition of a natatorium in the new Greencastle YMCA. One film professor asked President White about the fate of the only movie theater in Greencastle, Ashley Square Cinema, which would be removed during Seminary Street renovations. President White deferred this question to VP Young, who shared that the proposal includes budget plans to relocate Ashley Square Cinema.

After President White concluded her remarks, Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Dave Berque took the floor. He shared that the Schedule of Classes for Fall 2024 would be released to students on March 20, and that 3 to 4 more First Year Seminars were needed. He also shared the results of a recent faculty poll, which measured which of the three schools DePauw faculty affiliate with. This poll found that 71 faculty members affiliate with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 22 with the Creative School, and 10 with the School of Business and Leadership. 31 faculty members affiliated with two or more schools, and 4 opted not to affiliate.

Changes to Event Planning

Following President White and VP Berques remarks, Dean of the Creative School Marcus Hayes discussed changes to the campus events planning policy. These changes apply only to faculty event planning, such as department-hosted events, and not student organizations events.

Dean Hayes explained that the new system will require faculty members and departments to submit their event ideas and budgets by March 18 for the Fall 2024 semester via Google Form. An event planning working group, formed of individuals representing many aspects of campus life, will review events and provide feedback or approval by the end of the Spring 2024 semester. Dean Hayes also recognized the upcoming deadline for event applications, and apologized for not sharing more information with faculty sooner. He acknowledged that this new process, while much needed, will take some time to perfect.

Professors commended Dean Hayes for taking on this challenge, which many viewed as long overdue, but shared some concerns. One professor worried that this new event system would be used to filter out event content, to which Dean Hayes assured: Content is not a part of the conversation. Instead, he explained, this new event system will be used to streamline the event planning process, increase student attendance to events, and avoid event overlap. It will also require all faculty events to be listed on Campus Labs, in order to allow students and alumni to learn about events ahead of time.

More here:

DePauw Faculty Talks Merit Pay, Academic Freedom, Donor Funds, and Event Planning at Monthly Meeting - The DePauw

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stop the construction of a copper mine in Arizona on land sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe as well as other Indigenous nations. Chchil Bidagoteel, also known as Oak Flat, sits atop the third largest copper deposit on the planet and is essential to green energy projects. The operation, which will be run by Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP, will leave a crater nearly 1,000 feet deep and 2 miles wide.

Oak Flat is like Mount Sinai to us our most sacred site where we connect with our Creator, our faith, our families and our land, said Wendsler Noise of Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit fighting to protect the area. We vow to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Over the years, Oak Flat has developed a storied history. In 2014, Oak Flat was a part of a military spending bill that would allow the government to swap the area with other land in Arizona. In 2016, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in an attempt to protect it, and in 2021 the Apache Stronghold sued the government, arguing that the land was reserved for the Western Apaches in an 1852 treaty. Then, in 2023, Apache Stronghold made the case that the land transfer would keep them from exercising their religion. The court disagreed.

The issue before the court illustrates a battle between religion, Indigenous rights, and potential solutions to the climate crisis. For tribal nations like the San Carlos Apache who practice what are known as land-based religions ceremonial practices that are inextricably tied to areas Indigenous peoples have relationships with preserving those lands with religious significance is paramount to the survival, and transmission, of both culture and values to the next generation.

But for developers, the proposed mine would support a few thousand jobs for the surrounding community, inject $61 billion into the local economy, and provide a critical supply of copper for everything from electric vehicles to energy storage systems. By 2031, the world will need almost 37 million metric tons of copper to continue the process of green-energy electrification. Resolution Copper said that Oak Flat could provide a quarter of U.S. copper production.

At the heart of Apache Strongholds legal case is something called substantial burden there must be proof that the government has interfered with an individuals right to practice their religious beliefs. Substantial burden protects U.S. citizens from government interference, unless the government has a really good reason. That means Apache Strongholds claim needs to be justified with a high level of scrutiny.

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, and Apache Stronghold wins, the federal government would need to show a compelling reason to destroy Oak Flat.

If the Supreme Court finds that land transfer of Oak Flat is a substantial burden on Apache religious practice, then the court sends the case back down to the lower court, said Beth Margaret Wright, who is from the Pueblo of Laguna and is an attorney with the Native American Rights Fund. Then that would be on the government to prove that the land transfer is narrowly tailored toward a compelling government interest.

Wright said thats a pretty high bar for the government to meet, and its complicated by the courts history with land-based religions.

According to the courts recent decision, Oak Flat is similar to an older case out of California: Lyng v. The Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. In the 1980s, the United States Forest Service was sued by the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association over the proposed construction of a road. The Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes argued the road would irreparably damage an area where tribal members conducted religious ceremonies.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could do what it wanted with its land and said that the government couldnt be held responsible for the religious needs of its citizens a kind of slippery slope that recognized that a favorable ruling for the tribes would provide a veto button for other Indigenous nations on public projects in the future. In its ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there were deeply held religious beliefs tied to the land, but the road was built anyway.

Joe Davis, an attorney with Becket Law, the firm defending Apache Stronghold, said the narrow focus on Lyng is what is at issue with Oak Flat: He says its the wrong framing.

Five years after the Lyng decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, was passed. Because RFRA was written to expand religious protections, the Apache Stronghold seeks the expanded protections under RFRA to be applied to Oak Flat.

This is a case, at its heart, about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which uses different language and is broader than the First Amendment, said Davis.

And that argument has some history with the courts. In 2012, Becket also defended Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court and won using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In that case, the court decided that under RFRA, the family that owns Hobby Lobby could opt out of providing birth control to employees under federal insurance laws due to religious beliefs. Essentially, the court found that the federal government was imposing a substantial burden because the use of birth control violated the owners religious freedoms.

Hobby Lobby shows that RFRA is very powerful, said Davis. This case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to make good on the promise of RFRA.

The Ninth Circuit decided that in Oak Flat, substantial burden wasnt met, citing the Lyng case. But the Lyng case doesnt define substantial burden, RFRA does, and Davis argues that the court made a leap applying substantial burden when the concept wasnt used in the Lyng case. Basically, the court didnt use the broad protections offered by RFRA and instead applied a ruling from a pre-RFRA world.

If the case gets picked up by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Apache Stronghold wins, this would help clarify substantial burden. But with that clarity, there may come many more legal battles testing the limits of the First Amendment for Indigenous peoples.

It might help us in the sense that now a substantial burden is more encompassing of land-based religions, said Beth Margaret Wright with the Native American Rights Fund. But it doesnt necessarily mean that our land-based religions and practices are forever protected.

A spokesperson with the U.S. Forest Service, the agency named in the lawsuit, declined to comment citing ongoing litigation.

Original post:

The massive copper mine that could test the limits of religious freedom - Grist