Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Peppered among the lush green oak and palm trees of the Rio Grande Valley, a mostly Hispanic region along the U.S.-Mexico border that has voted solidly Democratic, there are Republican outposts popping up.

The Hidalgo County GOP headquarters was busy on the mid-September day when CBS News knocked on its doors in McAllen, Texas. The foyer was filled with candidate signs and stickers from a slate of Republican candidates. Inside, Hidalgo County GOP Chair Adrienne Pena-Garza was running a phone bank for GOP candidates something she says was unheard of just a few election cycles ago.

"Family, faith and freedom. I mean, that's the messaging that's been working for us," Pena-Garza said in an interview airing on the special "CBS Reportes: El Poder" streaming on CBS News.

A similar slogan worked for newly elected Rep. Mayra Flores, who became the first Mexican-born woman sworn into Congress in June. Her campaign, with the help of the GOP, spent over a million dollars.

"God, Family, Country" is front and center on the Flores campaign signs that dot the highways and front lawns of homes.

The 36-year-old, who is married to a U.S. Border Patrol agent, won Texas' 34th Congressional District special election to fill Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela's seat.

"The Republican Party is investing in the Hispanic community, because they understand that the Hispanic community is the future of this country," Flores told CBS News in Washington, D.C. "It is time that we talk about our faith and not allow anyone to shame us for believing in God and for fighting for strong family values."

It's a message Pastor Luis Cabrera of City Church of Harlingen preaches from the pulpit on Sundays. Cabrera, who identifies as Republican, calls himself Flores' spiritual counselor.

His evangelical church sits on the access road off a busy highway. A drum kit, along with guitars and other instruments sit on the stage for the musicians who play and pray. A new kind of MAGA flag hangs from the rafters it reads "Make America Godly Again."

Cabrera says Flores approached him and said she liked the message and wanted to use it for her campaign.

"I'm like, Are you serious, Mayra? Like, [those are] fighting words. Not everyone's going to agree," Cabrera recalled. But Cabrera says Flores insisted.

Cabrera says Hispanic Republican candidates in the Rio Grande Valley who openly talk about their faith are finding sympathetic ears. One issue Cabrera highlighted was gay marriage, which he says shows a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans.

"Their God to them is just obsolete. You know why? Because of our traditional values of a marriage between one man and one woman. They don't believe in that. They believe in gay marriage, which is that's their right. But as a Christian, that affects us. I don't want my son and daughter to be told it's okay to be gay. No, it's not okay to be gay. It's against the word of God. And so, that right there speaks volumes," explained Cabrera.

Recent CBS News pollingof registered voters shows that nearly half of registered voters, 49%, believe that LGBTQ people will have fewer rights and freedoms if Republicans win control of Congress in the fall.

While campaigning from the pulpit may be taboo in some churches, Cabrera says his church is not a 501(c)3, not a non-profit, so he has no problem talking about his politics to his flock.

"We have the power to elect and we have the power to fire people. That's awesome. That's the greatest weapon that we have, but we don't use. Why not?" Cabrera asked.

Flores supporter Celina Tafolla openly talks about her political views and her faith. Tafolla says she was raised a Democrat, but after President Trump's election, she decided to not be quiet about being a Republican in the Rio Grande Valley.

"You know, God first. Your loyalty isn't to a political party, your loyalty is God. And that's why you should be voting red, because it aligns with our values," she said.

Discussions about border security envelop the region. Government data shows that this fiscal year, the border patrol made more than 400,000 arrests in the Rio Grande Valley,a record for the sector.

Hidalgo County Democratic chair Richard Gonzales said key issues of the Democratic Party like abortion, gun control and the environment, are not as important to some as the economy, crime and immigration a major focus for Republicans.

"The biggest misconception is that we are (a) cartel-run, open-borders, poor, crime-ridden city, crime-ridden community. That is absolutely not true," said Gonzales. "The national [GOP] message was basically, Hey, the Valley is just an open borders area. It's full of illegal immigrants. They are taking your jobs...taking your money."

But as campaign season comes to a close, which issues will be decisive in the outcome of the midterm elections?

University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley Political Science professor Mark Kaswan says it's worth watching the Rio Grande Valley, though he's not expecting a red wave. There's a better-than-even chance Democrats will win back Flores seat, Kaswan predicts, though he said her victory has given Rio Grande Valley Republicans hope.

"They have cracked that door open," Kaswan said. "They see an opportunity to make gains."

Republicans are continuing to hold onto their lead in the House, though their margins for capturing the majority are growing narrower,according to the CBS News Battleground Tracker. Republicans and Democrats alike are concerned they would have fewer rights and freedoms than they currently have if the opposing party wins, CBS News polls show.

Omar Villafranca is a CBS News correspondent based in Dallas.

Read more:

How Republicans in the Rio Grande Valley are using faith to draw in Latino voters - CBS News

Im delighted to support Democrat Teresa Pierce for Maine Senate District 25, which includes Falmouth, Cumberland, North Yarmouth, Gray, Long Island and most of Yarmouth.

Having served alongside Teresa for the past eight years, I know she will champion the values that have always mattered to the district: robust public education, protection of our natural resources and fiscal responsibility. Her voting record over eight years in the Maine House shows her commitment to these issues. In addition, she has the skills and judgment to tackle newer challenges like climate change, election integrity and threats to reproductive freedom.

Please join me in voting for Teresa Pierce on Nov. 8, or vote absentee starting Oct. 11.

Cathy BreenDemocratic state senatorFalmouth

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Excerpt from:

Letter to the editor: Pierce will work for values that matter to Senate District 25 - Press Herald

OPINION:

Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud introduced the concept of projection, the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds. We are seeing that play out with the Democratic Party in real time. Below are three examples of the Democrats accusations which mirror what they are doing.

In a recent speech, President Biden, flanked by U.S. Marine sentries, ranted that the Republican Party is led by a fascist ex-president who does not respect the Constitution. Since Biden has been in office, his FBI has raided Mar-a-Largo, the home of the former president. Peter Navarro, a former trade adviser to Donald Trump, was arrested, placed in leg irons and handcuffs, and strip searched. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a Trump supporter, was served a federal subpoena and had his cellphone confiscated. The stench brings to mind the Gestapo.

Democratic leaders railed that the Supreme Courts recent decision on abortion is anti-democratic. In fact, with it the Supreme Court restored democracy, political freedom and states rights. Absent a constitutionally enumerated right to abortion, the court has allowed each state to decide whether or under what conditions abortions shall be legal. The people, not the judiciary, now decide.

The Democratic mayors of the sanctuary cities of Chicago, Washington and New York complain that sending illegal migrants to their cities is inhumane. When 50 migrants showed up at Marthas Vineyard, they were quickly shuttled off to a military base. Apparently, they are blind to the unprecedented flow of illegals, encouraged by the administration, that has resulted in the death of nearly 750 migrants this fiscal year. Also, illicit fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine pouring across the border has resulted in more than 107,000 deaths between December 2020 to December 2021. Is this what they call humane?

Perhaps the Democratic Party could benefit from some psychoanalysis.

RON PHIPPSAnnapolis, Maryland

Read this article:

Letter to the editor: Left needs heads examined - Washington Times

Introduction and summary

Recent debates across the country have pushed for book banning and the adoption of politically motivated laws and policies on school curricula. Such measures seek to prevent teachers from providing a thorough curriculum on American history, civics, and government in U.S. public schools and deny students their rights to a complete education.1 At least 17 states have introduced bills containing gag orders2 or taken other steps that would restrict how teachers can discuss American history and current events, including pulling books off library shelves in an effort to suppress so-called divisive conceptsa shorthand affectation nearly always referring to issues about race and identity.3

In Texas, for example, at least 713 books have been banned from public schools, and school districts and school boards attempts to censor books have triggered a systematic review of hundreds of books in every school district in the entire state.4 These censorship efforts require tens of thousands of hours from teachers, librarians, and administrators to review the books and implement a system of censorshipall at a time when school resources are already stretched thin, and states across the country are facing teacher and staff shortages.

These actions run counter to the shared value of free speech that has informed generations of American progress. They also violate the First Amendment, 14th Amendment, and Title IX rights of all students and educators, with particular disproportionate impact on people of color and LGBTQI+ individuals.5 However, despite some states and localities focus on book bans and curriculum restrictions, national polling data detailed throughout this report reveal that a majority of Americans oppose the anti-public-education movement, which involves policy decisions that perpetuate discrimination and inequity in education by cutting or reallocating funding dedicated to public schools toward private or alternative schooling structures that tend to benefit the wealthy; want teachers and students to play a more active role in determining school curricula; and want schools to embrace diversity and inclusion. But this is not evident from many media headlines, which often sensationalize popular political talking points, even those with no basis in truth.

Education should not be politicized

Preparing students for all types of civic engagement by teaching complete history is crucial; yet beginning as early as the 2016 Trump administration campaign, efforts to weaken the U.S. Department of Education through proposed cuts of $7.1 billion6 in funding. These cuts would undermine the departments guidance and protections of vulnerable students attending public school, continue to threaten the future of public education in the United States.

When Americans call their legislators, join school boards, or utilize social media platforms to share their concerns about education, they are exercising the right to make their voices heard on policy issuesa right that is central to the American civic engagement process. Schools have a core responsibility to teach students about these processes. Book bans and curriculum gag orders make it impossible for every child to receive a high-quality and age-appropriate education by dictating whose history, identities, and voices matter.

For example, when a 2022 nationwide survey from Campaign for Our Shared Future7 asked, All things being equal, would you prefer that each of the following take a more active role in the decisions about the subjects students are taught in schools, or a less active role?, 92 percent of parents and 85 percent of voters overall said they believe that teachers should play a more active role in decisions about what subjects are taught in classrooms.8 Additionally, 74 percent of parents and 71 percent of voters overall reported believing that current high school students should play the second-most-active role.9

Ongoing state and local actions to ban books simply because they address racism, white supremacy, or LGBTQI+ issues have inspired students to stand up for their civil rights. Young adults attending public, charter, and private schools in Delaware began submitting stories of their experiences with overt and systemic racism,10 countering the narrative that America is a post-racial country and that racism no longer exists. Hundreds of students have taken to student-run social media accounts on platforms such as Instagram to tell their stories in the form of quotes or summaries detailing their experiences with racism and other forms of discrimination in their public, charter, and private schools.11 Young adults in Texas and Pennsylvania have also protested,12 while others in Missouri have sued their districts for removing books that are inclusive of multiple groups across racial/ethnic, gender, nondisabled and disabled, and socioeconomic lines.13

Attempts to limit learning are un-American

Recent survey research conducted by the National Education Association14 and ASO Communications15 between September and October 2021 found that everyone across demographics agrees that removing history from curricula and banning books are tools that politicians use to control a political narrative. GBAO and Anchor Collaborative conducted a similar survey in April and May 2022 and found a majority of Americans felt that efforts to censor classroom conversations about race go way too far.16 The survey asked participants to rate on a scale of 010 how well a group of statements on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background described how they feel about race in America, where 10 means the statement describes how you feel very well and 0 means it does not describe how you feel at all. Fifty-nine percent of people responded to the following statement with a rating of 810:

Efforts to censor teachers, omit history, or ban important conversations about race in our schools go way too far. Our children deserve an education honest about who we are, demonstrating integrity in how we treat others, and creating a sense of belonging so every child has the freedom to learn, grow, and pursue their dreams.

Research findings from Campaign for Our Shared Future17 found that in a national sample of parents and nonparents ages 18 and older who are registered or likely voters, more than half were overall supportive of, and voted in favor of, educators teaching about the following topics in K-12 schools:18

Yet, in less than one year, state legislators have called for districtwide reviews of books, despite a nationwide teacher shortage and other existing strains on the teacher workforce.19 These actions are part of anti-public-school policies and agendas, which have adverse impacts on the experiences of students who attend these schools. More recently, states such as Arizona20 and Tennessee21 have also resurrected former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos privatization schemes and proposals to expand tax incentives that benefit private-school parents by passing voucher laws allowing parents to move their children into private school or other alternative schooling options with no accountability in accordance with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) law.

Interestingly, polling data on voters attitudes toward school voucher programs reveal that despite Arizona voters previous opposition to and rejection of a similar universal vouchers proposalwith 67 percent voting No and 33 percent voting Yes in 2018, Arizona lawmakers successfully passed a new law on school choice vouchers.22 Other national polling results found that 49 percent of survey participants believe:23

Certain politicians try to use race to turn us against schools and teachers, or point the finger at parents. These politicians want to keep us from coming together to demand every school provide a quality education to every child, not just the children of the wealthy few.

More than 1,500 book bans have occurred in at least 86 school districts in 26 states since politicians began igniting the anti-public-education movement toward the end of 2019.24 Of the total number of books banned, 41 percent include protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are people of color; 22 percent of the titles directly address issues of race and racism; 16 percent are history books or biographies; and 9 percent have themes related to rights and activism.25 Other survey results revealed that 51 percent of survey participants responded to the following statement with a rating of 810, with 10 indicating that the statement describes how they feel very well:26

While educators work to deliver our children accurate and honest education, some politicians are trying to censor the truth of our history, passing laws to ban learning from the mistakes of our past and erase leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. who stood up to racism and changed our country for the better.

Share of banned books that include protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are people of color

Share of banned books that directly address issues of race and racism

Share of banned books that are history books or biographies

Share of banned books that have themes related to rights and activism

Book bans and the passage of laws to allegedly combat critical race theoryso-called divisive-concepts lawshave nothing to do with the actual tenets of critical race theory, a form of scholarship that emerged in critical legal studies discourse by scholars of various disciplines, including law, sociology, education, and other social sciences. Critical race theory analyzes and critiques formalism and objectivism in American legal and social institutions when examining the relationship between power and law27 and holds that subjective personal voice, or storytelling as a methodological tool in legal analysis or education policy research,28 reveals two important things about the law: 1) how the law has been shaped and 2) how law shapes issues of race.29 But some media outlets are inaccurately describing it as ideas around inferiority, inherently racist, oppressive, unpatriotic, or divisive concepts.30 Polling data showed 46 percent of survey respondents agreed that the following statements align very well with their views:31

Out of touch politicians are trying to confront problems the only way they know how: lying about them. The same grifters who have peddled lies about our election want to peddle lies about our history, hoping to keep us divided and distracted so they can take away our freedom to vote and deny us the resources our schools, families, and communities actually need.

Inclusive history and school curricula strengthen communities

The inclusion of complete U.S. history in public school curricula serves the public good. Americas public schools exist as an epicenter of teaching and learning of truth. If children are not taught accurate and inclusive historical facts in school, they will find information to fill the voidoften from unreliable and agenda-driven sources on the internet that may lead them to believe false and even harmful narratives.

Culturally responsive pedagogy involves teaching diverse history; it teaches children how to relate to their own family members and communities who may hold identities that differ from their own. All families deserve access to supportive curricula targeted to meet their unique socio-emotional and social identity needs, especially during the growing mental health crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years. In the wake of the pandemics impacts on the K-12 education systemcreating learning gaps that have been exacerbated by an increasing teacher shortagethe politicization of public education also gave some states and school districts the opportunity to ban books and restrict curricula, just to score political points. Schools must remain a neutral place of learning for all students of all backgrounds.

Recent polling data from Education Next find thatalmost two-thirds, or 64 percent, of all parents who respondedto the survey believed that their childs school places an appropriate emphasis on slavery, racism, and discrimination against Black people, with 69 percent of Republican parents saying their childs school placed an appropriate emphasis on race and racism.32 Additional polling data on school curricula asked Democrats and Republicans the following questions:33

Responses revealed that 93 percent of Democrats responded that they believe it is appropriate for schools to include discussions of slavery and racism in teaching about U.S. history, with 67 percent indicating that they strongly believe it is appropriate. However, only 71 percent of Republicans responded that they believe these discussions are appropriate in schools, with only 45 percent indicating a strong belief on this point. On the whole, Democratic respondents were 22 percentage points more likely than Republican respondents to believe that the discussion of slavery and racism in U.S. history classes is appropriate.

Share of Democratic survey respondents who said they believe it is appropriate

Share of Democratic survey respondents who said they strongly believe it is appropriate

Share of Republican survey respondents who said they believe it is appropriate

Share of Republican survey respondents who said they strongly believe it is appropriate

On the question of whether schools should include discussions on the continued social, economic, and political impacts of slavery and racism when teaching U.S. history, 89 percent of Democrats believed it is appropriate for schools to include these discussions in classroom instruction, with 70 percent indicating that they strongly believe it is appropriate. However, only 48 percent of Republicans believed that these discussions are appropriate in school, with only 15 percent indicating a strong belief on this point. On the whole, Democratic respondents were significantly more likely than their Republican counterparts to believe that the discussion of the continued impacts of slavery and racism in U.S. history classes is appropriate.

In response to concerns about the teaching of history and culture in schools, several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware, have passed bills mandating the inclusion of civic and social contributions of American Indian, Black, Pacific Islander, and Asian American communities as well as of the intersecting identity, religious, and cultural features within each community.34 In Delaware, Gov. John Carney (D) passed H.B. 198,35 which called for each district and charter school to implement a complete curriculum on Black history for students in grades K-12. In June of this year, Arizona also passed a law requiring the state Board of Education to include discussions in social studies classes on political ideologies that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy in the United States.36

These state legislative actions demonstrate support for parents and teachers who believe that young people cannot be fully engaged in the democratic process without learning the fundamental facts concerning a social cause, issue, law, or policy. Americas youth must be afforded the opportunity to learn full and complete U.S. history in order to actively participate in the system of democracy they inherit when they turn 18 years old.

The May 2022 survey results from GBAO and Anchor Collaborative also asked participants in the sample to rate on a scale of 010 how well a group of statements on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background described how they feel about race in America, where 10 means the statement describes how they feel very well and 0 means it does not describe how they feel at all. The results found that 54 percent of participants responded to the following statement with a rating of 810:37

Teenagers & young adults today are passionate, active, aware, & more accepting of everyone. These young people want to keep moving the world forward. Those that want to silence them want to take us backwards. So lets make sure young people get an education that empowers them to make a better future.

These findings suggest that providing an education that includes a diverse history and curricula helps to inform democratic engagement at an early age.

Teachers and families should stand against anti-public-education legislation

When participants in the sample were asked to rate on a scale of 010 how well the following statements, which focused on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background, described how they feel about race in America, 45 percent of respondents said they felt that the following statement aligned very well with their views:38

Attacks on how we teach and talk about race and racism draw from the oldest playbook in American politics. Politicians use fear of people of color, immigrants, or LGBTQ people to breed resentment so they can retain power and dominance by undermining our multiracial democracy.

The federal government has remained steadfast in supporting the teaching of American history and civics education in K-12 schools. Under Title II of ESSA, the Department of Education awarded six competitive grants from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2021 for helping schools work with local nonprofits to teach curricula on American history and civics education. Most recently, Street Law was awarded funding in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center to implement a program called Talking About Local Current and Contested Issues in Schools (TALCCS), where Georgetown law students partnered with local Baltimore County school districts to teach young people curricula that reflect diversity, identities, histories, contributions of all students.39 Social studies teachers, who are often overlooked when it comes to professional development opportunities, receive regular instructional support, check-ins, and reflection opportunities as part of TALCCS implementation and evaluation.

An innovative part of the logic model is the community deliberations aspect, where students and teachers participate in hands-on, civic engagement and deliberate on current issues while receiving support from Georgetown staff to help address their fears about bringing current and controversial issues into classrooms. These types of programs need to be implemented nationwide. Not only do they reaffirm the belief that everyone should participate in civic life, but they also amplify impact through a community-schools approach by connecting schools, communities, and legal professionals to solve individual and community problems. Community deliberations encourage people to work together toward policy on local or cross-district issues that benefit all communities. Congress should utilize the existing provision in Title II, Part B of ESSA as a federal accountability guideline to ensure that all students have opportunities to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, as well as to close educational achievement gaps.

The teaching of American history and civics education is listed under ESSA Title II, Part B: National Activities. The secretary of education is authorized to reserve no less than 26 percent of the appropriated, competitive funds for an institution of higher education or other nonprofit or for-profit organization with demonstrated expertise in the development of evidence-based approaches whose projected plans will improve:40

(1) the quality of American history, civics, and government education by educating students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights; and (2) the quality of the teaching of American history, civics, and government in elementary schools and secondary schools, including the teaching of traditional American history.41

Under Section 2233: National Activities, ESSA defines national activities to include those that:

(A) show potential to improve the quality of student achievement in, and teaching of, American history, civics and government, or geography, in elementary schools and secondary schools; and (B) demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved populations; and (2) may include(A) hands-on civic engagement activities for teachers and students; and (B) programs that educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights.

Moving forward, the federal government must continue to provide funding and other supports to ensure that teachers who value the nations diverse history can teach it. One way the government can demonstrate this support is by issuing federal guidance reiterating the significance of these grants and the importance of cross-collaboration between schools and nonprofits, followed by additional guidelines for effective implementation and use of competitive grant funds. If these actions are taken, the Department of Education will be able to better support and hold K-12 schools accountable for providing all students with a quality education.

Conclusion

Overall, researchers found that respondents were more likely to respond positively when messaging emphasized the prioritization of qualified educators and proven facts in the classroom. Respondents were also more likely to agree with messaging that stressed collectivity and used words such as integrity, freedom, honesty, and sense of belonging when discussing these topics.

Ultimately, crafting good policies should prioritize teaching truth, not restricting or omitting important aspects of U.S. history simply because more inclusive curricula might make some students feel uncomfortable or shamed about the United States history of racially discriminatory systems and laws. Survey data indicate that 58 percent of parents and voters feel that the following statement describes very well how they feel about teaching historical facts, prioritizing honesty, and supporting individuals and families from all backgrounds:42

Kids in this country have not been taught our full, honest history, including some of Americas worst chapters. No one should be made to feel ashamed of who they are-no matter their background. But well all progress as a country if we learn and acknowledge the mistakes of the past.

Legislators need to combat policies that violate students rights by ensuring that the accountability systems in place for protecting their rights are operating as intended and that all students are receiving a quality education. Failure to protect elementary and secondary school students rights to an improved quality of education that teaches complete and accurate American history, literature, civics, and governmentincluding the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rightsis a direct violation of the Department of Educations explicit responsibility to abide by its mission to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.43 The department must continue to monitor the state and local landscape of school curricula on American history, as well as state actions on book banning, and offer technical guidance to schools that seek to implement more inclusive strategies or other policies ensuring that school districts are not violating students First Amendment rights.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Allie Pearce, policy analyst for the K-12 Education Policy team, and Jamil Modaffari, research associate for the K-12 Education Policy team, for helping support the research for this report. She would also like to thank Edwith Theogene, senior director for Racial Equity and Justice; Jesse OConnell, senior vice president for Education; and Mara Rudman, executive vice president of policy, for their thoughtful review of this report.

Here is the original post:

Book Banning, Curriculum Restrictions, and the Politicization of U.S. Schools - Center For American Progress

Indiana's near-total abortion ban remains in effect for now as a southern Indiana judge weighs a request to halt its enforcement while courts determine the constitutionality of Senate Enrolled Act 1.

Judge Kelsey Hanlon of the Owen Circuit Court, a Republican sitting as special judge in Monroe County, listened to some 75 minutes of oral argument on the issue Monday.

She subsequently pledged to rule "expeditiously" on a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The new abortion law, which took effect Thursday, prohibits all abortions in Indiana from the moment of conception, except within 10 weeks of fertilization for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or 20 weeks if necessary to prevent serious physical impairment or the death of a pregnant woman, or because of a lethal fetal anomaly.

People are also reading

Pro-life and pro-choice protesters take to the Porter County Courthouse lawn in Valparaiso.

The statute, approved Aug. 5 by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, also shuts down abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics by requiring every abortion be completed in a hospital or hospital-owned surgical center, and it puts doctors at risk of losing their medical license if they fail to sufficiently justify the legal basis for an abortion.

Kenneth Falk, legal director at the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of a variety of abortion rights plaintiffs the near-total abortion ban runs afoul of the Indiana Constitution and must be struck down.

Specifically, Falk said the Constitution's declaration that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, establishes a right to privacy, including the right to abortion, upon which the General Assembly cannot infringe.

He said that absent a right to privacy, couldn't the General Assembly, in the name of preserving potential life, eliminate the rape and incest exceptions to the abortion ban, prohibit access to contraception generally and even criminalize male masturbation?

"We are asking the court to recognize that the Legislature went too far," Falk said. "Women will suffer. Women will die (if the law remains in effect)."

Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, a Jasper County native defending the statute on behalf of the state, said that if the framers of the Indiana Constitution intended to create a right to privacy they would have written it into the state's governing charter.

Instead, records show abortion was prohibited by law both before and after the 1851 Constitution was adopted, and abortion remained a criminal offense in the Hoosier State until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationwide.

Fisher said the General Assembly was well within its rights to once again restrict abortion access following the June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that rescinded the right to abortion established by Roe, and a state court should not unilaterally overturn the will of the people of Indiana as expressed through their elected representatives.

"Unborn children literally will die if this law does not go into effect," Fisher said. "Privacy is nowhere in the Indiana Constitution mentioned as an undifferentiated right. ... There just isn't enough there."

Falk's second argument focused on a different constitutional provision that prohibits treating similar entities differently. He said the law's requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals or affiliated surgical centers unlawfully discriminates against abortion clinics.

Riding Shotgun/DNR Conservation Officer Tyler Brock

Fisher said Indiana only licensed abortion clinics post-Roe. With Roe no longer good law, he said legislators appropriately chose to restrict abortion access to hospitals and surgery centers capable of providing all necessary follow-up care.

No matter how the judge rules on Falk's request for a preliminary injunction, the decision is all but certain to be ultimately appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit claiming the near-total abortion ban runs afoul of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is scheduled for review next month by an Indianapolis court.

In Northwest Indiana, abortion access remains largely accessible to Region women at a Planned Parenthood health center just across the state line at 19831 Governors Hwy. in Flossmoor, Illinois.

State Sen. Michael Griffin, D-Highland

1st Senate District

Represents: Hammond (south side), Munster, Highland, Griffith, Dyer, Schererville

Experience: Former Highland clerk-treasurer; university instructor

Committees: Insurance and Financial Institutions; Local Government

State Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago

2nd Senate District

Represents: Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary (west side), Griffith, Hobart, Merrillville

Experience: State senator since 2008, previously served 1994-98; attorney

Committees: Commerce and Technology; Insurance and Financial Institutions (ranking member); Judiciary (ranking member); Rules and Legislative Procedure; Tax and Fiscal Policy; Utilities (ranking member)

State Sen. Eddie Melton, D-Gary

3rd Senate District

Represents: Gary, Lake Station, New Chicago, Hobart, Merrillville, Crown Point

Experience: State senator since 2016; community relations manager

Committees: Appropriations (ranking member); Education and Career Development; Health and Provider Services; Joint Rules; Rules and Legislative Procedure

State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesterton

4th Senate District

Represents: Ogden Dunes, Portage, Chesterton, South Haven, Burns Harbor, Beverly Shores, Michigan City, Westville

Experience: State senator since 2021; attorney

Committees: Corrections and Criminal Law (ranking member); Environmental Affairs; Local Government; Pensions and Labor; Public Policy

State Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso

5th Senate District

Represents: Valparaiso, Hebron, Kouts, Jasper County

Experience: State senator since 2007; attorney

Committees: Appropriations; Ethics; Health and Provider Services (chairman); Rules and Legislative Procedure; Tax and Fiscal Policy

State Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell

6th Senate District

Represents: St. John, Cedar Lake, Crown Point, Winfield, Lowell, Newton County

Experience: State senator since 2014, state representative 2012-14; small business owner

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Local Government; Tax and Fiscal Policy

State Sen. Mike Bohacek, R-Michiana Shores

8th Senate District

Represents: LaPorte County

Experience: State senator since 2016; consultant

Committees: Corrections and Criminal Law; Insurance and Financial Institutions; Judiciary; Local Government

State Rep. Carolyn Jackson, D-Hammond

1st House District

Represents: Hammond, Whiting

Experience: State representative since 2018; retired Cook County, Ill., probation officer

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Family, Children and Human Affairs; Natural Resources

State Rep. Earl Harris Jr., D-East Chicago

2nd House District

Represents: East Chicago, Gary (west side)

Experience: State representative since 2016; small business owner

Committees: Government and Regulatory Reform; Roads and Transportation; Ways and Means

State Rep. Ragen Hatcher, D-Gary

3rd House District

Represents: Gary (downtown and east side), Lake Station, New Chicago, Hobart

Experience: State representative since 2018; attorney

Committees: Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development; Courts and Criminal Code (ranking member); Government and Regulatory Reform

State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso

4th House District

Represents: Valparaiso

Experience: State representative since 2006; aviation safety consultant

Committees: Elections and Apportionment; Roads and Transportation; Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications (chairman)

State Rep. Pat Boy, D-Michigan City

9th House District

Represents: Michigan City, Chesterton, Beverly Shores, Long Beach, Westville

Experience: State representative since 2018; retired small business owner

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Natural Resources (ranking member)

State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage

10th House District

Represents: Portage, Chesterton, Ogden Dunes, Burns Harbor, South Haven

Experience: State representative since 2008; financial solutions associate

Committees: Employment, Labor and Pensions; Roads and Transportation (ranking member); Veterans Affairs and Public Safety

State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron

11th House District

Represents: St. John, Cedar Lake, Lowell, Schneider, Hebron, Kouts

Experience: State representative since 2014; farmer, former state environmental regulator

Committees: Agriculture and Rural Development (vice chairman); Courts and Criminal Code; Environmental Affairs

State Rep. Mike Andrade, D-Munster

12th House District

Represents: Munster, Hammond (south side), Highland, Griffith

Experience: State representative since 2020; small businessman

Committees: Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development; Employment, Labor and Pensions; Veterans Affairs and Public Safety

State Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary

14th House District

Represents: Gary (south side), Merrillville

Experience: State representative since 1990; education professor at Indiana University Northwest

Read more from the original source:

Judge considers halting enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban - The Times of Northwest Indiana

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

THE WOODLANDS The worship space at Grace Woodlands church was peppered with red MAGA hats on Saturday, as young adults gathered to hear from leading conservatives often seen on Fox News.

In the hallways, a few people pushed strollers and others weaved through the crowd to get to the tables hawking shirts that read, Let the revolution begin or Freedom is never more than one generation from tyranny.

They were there for the fourth annual Texas Youth Summit, a two-day conference in which teenage and young adult Texans convened with politicians, ideologically aligned companies and political groups to hear lectures, meet in small groups and ultimately feel empowered, as the summits slogan says, to be the catalysts to win the Culture War.

Speakers included Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Donald Trump Jr., talk show host Candace Owens and U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who wore a pistol strapped to her leg as she addressed the hall. As the headliners gave their speeches, a large cross from the churches sanctuary was illuminated behind them.

U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz also spoke, the same day the Washington Post reported that he sought a preemptive pardon from President Donald Trump related to a sex trafficking investigation. On Saturday, Gaetz made no mention of the investigation, in which the U.S. Department of Justice was reportedly looking into whether he paid for women to travel across state lines for sex and had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl. Instead, he urged the young people in attendance to fight for conservative causes.

If you're here with me on a Saturday, you came to this because you care and it is because you know the fight we are in, he said. We're now in a country where you see grandmothers robbed in broad daylight in our major cities, and they are raiding the home of the former president of the United States. You used to only see this in the poorest third world countries on planet Earth.

The summit was founded by Christian Collins, a former political staffer for Cruz and U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady. Registration for the event, which was supported through donations and sponsorships from businesses like the right-wing cellphone company Patriot Mobile, was free for students ages 12 through 26, as long as they submitted a reference from an adult confirming their interest in conservative politics. Adults were able to buy a ticket.

According to its website, the summit strives to identify, educate, and train students to promote principles of fiscal responsibility, free market, limited government, American Exceptionalism and the Judeo-Christian principles this country was founded on.

"The Left controls the education system, TV networks, Hollywood, and social media and they are influencing youth," the website reads. "Its so important youth learn the Conservative Principles that have always made and will continue to make America exceptional."

For attendees, the stakes were high.

I'm so conservative, I love my country. So all of that stuff is just stuff we need to strive for. And they're trying to take that away from our country, said Manny Galvan, president of his Houston high schools Turning Point USA chapter. Every day we sit here, so the more we do nothing, the more that's getting taken. The more we're trying to fight back, the more we can gain.

But attendees also had differing views on what the culture war means.

It's not a literal war, but it is a metaphorical war for the battle of ideas, said Collins, the event's founder. We are working to educate young people with conservative and most importantly, Judeo Christian values so that they have the right worldview when they go off to college, or when they're in their high schools, because of what the left is doing.

Paideia Classical School was one of the organizations tabling at the event. They have four campuses across Texas, with three of them opening up within the last three years.

We are trying to create critical thinkers with our classes, said Loiuse Davidson, who was working the table. Many people just accept what they first see without any research.

Some panels at the event urged attendees to question established research, raising conspiracy theories around COVID-19, cellphone towers and more. But more than anything, the event focused on the idea that liberals inside and outside the government were taking the country in a dangerous direction.

When it comes to this organization, we're a nonprofit dealing with conservative issues, and we're addressing the issues as opposed to specific groups, Collins said. "We're really trying to tackle the ideas, the ideas are important to us. And so if we think your idea is wrong, then we will address the idea but I mean, we're not trying to go after anyone's identity.

Phill Cady, an Air Force veteran who moved to Texas from California, set up a table to register people to vote. He said hed register anyone to vote if they asked even if they didn't agree with him.

Some people just see MAGA and think bad, he said, pointing to his red Make America Great Again hat. I am a Republican, but I'm not here to support that.

But from many, the message was to do more than vote. In order to win the culture war, strong political action and mobilization was needed.

If you're a digital warrior, get better at it, Gaetz said. If you make phone calls and knock on doors, become more efficient, become an organizer and activist.

The Texas Tribune Festival is almost here! From Thursday through Saturday, Sept. 22-24, in downtown Austin, TribFest attendees will enjoy three days full of mind-expanding events, conversations and panels featuring more than 350 big names including Chris Bosh, Pete Buttigieg, Liz Cheney, Annette Gordon-Reed and many others. Join us for Texas biggest politics and policy event when you buy your tickets today.

See more here:

Texas Youth Summit draws conservative to plot the culture war - The Texas Tribune

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, I asked readers to discuss how theyre thinking about the upcoming midterm elections in the United States. I am disappointed that I didnt hear from many current Republican voters, something that Ive found informative in the past and that Ill return to in future installments. I did get lots of responses from former Republicans, independents, and Democrats, and listening to them, Donald Trump seems like an albatross for the Republican Party.

Steve cast his first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan. Until President Trump, I was a lifelong Republican, he wrote. My major issue is whether a candidate supports Trump. He has crushed my vision of America. If a candidate even remotely supports Trump, they will never get my vote.

For correspondents alienated by the latest incarnation of the GOP, one issue loomed largest. Im an independent who was once a Republican, Michael writes. I left the party due to the January 6 insurrection and the GOP refusal to investigate it. The issue driving me is to defeat Trumpism.

Barbara has different ideological priors but the same focus:

I will vote for democracy. That means I will vote for those who uphold the rule of law, meaning that no one is above the law. I will vote for those who uphold our constitutional right to choose our representatives, and vote against those who are trying to restrict voting rights, or trying to give legislators the ability to throw out votes and choose their own winners. I will vote for those who support the peaceful transfer of power and against those who reject an election because they dont like the outcome. I will vote for legislators who work for their constituents and against those who work for their personal benefit. I will vote for legislators who uphold their oath of office.

Additionally, Barbara alluded to abortion, the issue that loomed next-largest among my correspondents, writing, I will vote for those who support a justice system where settled precedent and established rights are not overturned based on judges personal and political beliefs.

The same two issues stood out for Mark, though in a somewhat different manner. He writes:

1) I am pro-life to the core. To me, elective abortion is homicide and a loathsome evil. It can be justified only to save the life of the mother, oras a compromisein cases of rape or incest.

2) To me, the integrity of our Constitution, the institutions it mandates, and even our federal union is at risk. All of this has come to be because of Donald Trump, who never should have been voted in as president. This man is a criminal and for all I know either an ally or a dupe of Vladimir Putin. I will never vote for Mr. Trump. I will not knowingly vote for anyone who endorses him or his take on many positions on items such as election results.

From when I was first able to vote, in 1972, to 2016, I voted Republican nearly 100 percent. I did vote for a few (fewer than five) Democrats and regretted it every time. The issue was that of abortion, that monstrous machinery of death that Justice Harry Blackmun built on the infamous day of January 20, 1973. In particular, it was most discouraging to see Democrats proclaiming themselves to be pro-choice, including some who once were pro-life. Pro-life people were not welcome in the Democratic Party. So be it. So I voted Republican.

Things started to change when Donald Trump ran for president as a Republican. Knowing his unsavory character, I took the position that I MIGHT vote for him but if I did, it would be like eating a turd sandwich. In the spring of 2016, I moved to the position of not voting for Trump under any circumstances. I considered voting for Hillary Clinton until I saw her at the DNC pumping fists with Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood. So I didnt vote for her or Trump in 2016. I voted for Evan McMullin. After seeing Trumps COVID response and, worse, seeing his starting to whine about the election being stolen even before votes were cast, I made up my mind to vote for Joe Biden, which I did. I would have sat it out if ANY OTHER Democrat ran for president.

We come to the here and now.

The attempted coup of January 6, 2021, and the revelations of Trumps involvement and, worse, the Republicans continuing to excuse Trump have made it so I will not vote for any Republican unless (like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney), he or she denounces and renounces Trump and his positions on things like our elections, race, Putin, and other strong leaders. However, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the Democrats are apparently running EXCLUSIVELY on protecting the right to choose death before birth for babies. The Republicans have handed them so many issues on which they could run, and maybe even secure my vote: issues like protecting our elections; our republican institutions; and our foreign policy, especially concerning Russia and Ukraine. But are Democrats running on those issues? No, of course not. Rather, they are running to protect a monstrous evil of abortion. On that, I will NOT vote.

So in 2022, I might consider it my patriotic duty to stay home. I may vote for some Democrats, but there are no guarantees. I even might vote for some Republicans if I see them dropping Trump.

CG, another voter who objects to Trumps efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is torn about whether his fellow Democrats should talk about abortion when they talk about democracy.

He writes:

The most important issue to me is stopping the MAGA candidates who still promote lies about election fraud. Im torn by how the Democratic Party has approached this election. I think abortion is a much more complex issue than a right being stripped away, and dislike that its such a focus this year. I think that collapsing critiques of authoritarian tendencies within Republican/conservative leaders and voters with critiques of anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-climate science positions cloud the issue. I also dislike spending money in Republican primaries to elevate the crazy people because theyre easier to beat. Its so dangerous; these crazy Republican candidates might win!

On the other hand, winning in November is really important. Even normal conservatives like Senator Sasse refused to impeach Trump. Normal conservatives supported McCarthys submission to Trump and punished Cheney for refusing to ignore that Trump tried to use deceit, fraud, and violence to stay in power. So Im not sure theres much of a difference between a normal conservative in Congress and a MAGA conservative. In which case, generating turnout by focusing on the Dobbs decision makes sense. Spending money to support repugnant, but weaker general-election candidates is justified. It might also have been necessary to highlight extreme positions earlier so that these candidates could not pretend to be normal now during the general election.

Read: Who knows what Putin will do next?

Lucretia is energized by the fight to protect legal abortion:

Womens right to bodily integritytheir place as a person, not just a human beingis under assault. That a party that saw the COVID vaccines as a denial of personal freedom would put itself in the position of controlling the most personal and female functions of more than half the population is a matter of mind-numbing hubris. I will vote Democratic.

B. concurs:

Im not usually a one-issue voter, but this year there is no contest: I will be voting for a womans right to control her own body. Im 87. I remember well what life for women was like before Roe. I joined second-wave feminism in the 1970s. I marched on the National Mall. I even shook Justice Blackmuns hand to thank him for the Supreme Court decision. I cant believe we are having to relive what women like me fought so hard for 50 years ago.

Jen shares the same values but isnt going to vote:

As a woman, abortion is the most important issue to me. I have never voted. I have always felt voters have never really mattered in the political system. You get only a selection of candidates pre-chosen for you, so its a selection, not an election. And none of the candidates seems to have the socioeconomic status of their voters, who are mostly low-income or middle-class.

James is a likely nonvoter, too:

At 35, Ive lost all sense of political identity or ideology. I see the harms in untruths across the spectrum, and I find it difficult to be on board with anything anymore. Sanity and reason never feel like theyre on the ballot. So much of our society, across the political spectrum, appears consumed by an ever-growing movement to make an authoritarian religion out of their personal and political identity. It feels deeply wrong to me. This isnt what a self-governing society, or life, should be about. I want to vote. I just dont know if I can bring myself to.

Climate change is the issue Sam cares about more than any other:

It will continue to be the most important issue for the rest of our lives. It is the most important issue in the history of our species. The economy is important, but nothing is more important than the future of all life on Earth. I care about this issue not just because of my daughter, but also because of me. I hope to have 50 more years of life on this planet, and the climate situation is currently dire. If any Republicans would put forth a real plan to address climate change, I might consider voting for them. They havent and they wont.

Trump alienated Marty from the Republican Party:

I am 80. I have been a registered GOP voter most of my life. I could not vote for Hillary and I never voted for Trump. I voted for Biden, unhappily, because I could not vote for Trump.

I consider myself to be conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social matters. As a partial libertarian, my view is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do so long as they dont ask others to clean up their mess. There is simply no political party that represents my views. I am not in the MAGA camp. I cannot register as a Democrat because of fiscal irresponsibility and the ghastly failure of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I will vote for Val Demings instead of Marco Rubio for the United States Senate. Unless someone like Mitt Romney is nominated for the GOP in 2024, I will most likely vote Democratic. I am appalled at the Supreme Courts destruction of Roe v. Wade. We need to legalize abortion and work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I strongly believe we and the West should provide Ukraine with aircraft, Western tanks, and strong air-defense systems at an accelerated level. If we gave Ukraine these weapons quickly, I believe it could truly win this war. Ukrainians are fighting and dying for all the values we claim to support, so what is the problem?

Russell is a former Republican, too:

I am 62 years old and have voted in every election since I was 18. I voted for Ronald Reagan for president twice. While it has often been said that the stakes couldnt be higher, it is my belief that this time that is empirically true. Republicans need to lose elections at every level, nationwide, regardless of integrity, to send a clear and unmistakable message that the present-day Republican ethos is unacceptable in a democracy. Millions of Republicans state out loud that my vote for Joe Biden should not count. Apathy is no longer an option for those who claim there is no difference between the two parties, unless they really do not care if they themselves are subjugated.

Meredith is a Gen X military spouse, a practicing Christian, a political independent, and a never-Trumper. She writes:

As a voter in North Carolina, I am heavily in support of Judge Cheri Beasley for Senate and will be turning out to vote for her. Beyond the fact that her opponent is awash in Trumpism, I genuinely like her for her character, compassion, and experience within the justice system. I am hoping we will see the first African American woman to represent NC in the Senate, because she is the most qualified person to fill the seat.

I used to believe in good-faith disagreements that led to understanding and compromise and would have considered myself a moderate Republican. But I no longer find a home in either party. We independents generally understand the deeper complexity involved in policy making and avoid the shallow, reductionist views that push the margins toward extreme tribalism. I hold many priorities in tension and find it difficult selecting one overriding issue. I care as deeply about police reform as I do about better support and advocacy for veterans. I am alarmed at the rate at which our society is trending authoritarian and want to protect voting rights and access for all citizens.

Democrats might enjoy my vote for the moment, but I am not naive about the influence of power on either party. Right now, the focus is on salvaging the executive processes that buffered the trend toward extremism and reforming a declining legislative branch.

Chuck is a married father in his 50s. He writes:

I strongly believe that voting is a civic duty and have voted in pretty much every election-special, primary, and generalsince I was 18. I was raised in a Roman Catholic, country-club-Republican family and supported the Republican candidate in most elections in my late teens and early 20s, but began thinking of myself as more of an independent in my mid-20s ... While the Democrats are not perfect, I am concerned about the trend in the Republican Party to win at all costs, even if that means perverting the normal ruleswritten and unwrittenthat govern our elections. It concerns me greatly that so many Republican candidates are repeating the Big Lie that Trump was the true winner of the 2020 election and that Biden and the Democrats stole the election. I will not only be voting but will also be sending contributions to Democratic candidates in close elections around the country, especially Senate candidates facing beatable, Trump-endorsed Republicans with minimal qualifications and wacky ideas about the election, nonexistent voter fraud, and outlawing all abortions.

Kristinia is unaligned and feels that the major parties are not a viable vehicle to advance her foremost priority: a negotiated end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, instead of escalating it by sending billions of our tax dollars for weaponry. This will push me to vote for third parties, as I often do.

She writes:

Like soldiers anywhere in the dark abyss of war, most do not want to be part of their leaders madness and would welcome any escape possible. That would be a negotiated truce, a pause in the fighting to work toward an imperfect settlement whereby both Russia and Ukraine can save face before more horrific loss of life occurs, before nuclear weapons are used, before the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. We hear nothing of that option for negotiation from Democrats or liberals, and only a few extremist, isolationist Republicans oppose the war spending, but for the wrong reasons. The U.S. government, the Pentagon, the war planners, and the neoliberals are hell-bent on making sure they achieve a unipolar world with the West at the helm, a proxy war with the ends justify the means goal of regime change, weakening Russia.

It is not understood by the U.S. populace that one can hold two thoughts (or more) at the same time: Putins aggression is wrong and imperialist, and the U.S. response in keeping the war hot is wrong and imperialist. One can believe both conceptions and push for the option of stopping the war, and still be in support of the Ukrainian people. Thus Ill be voting for candidates who have the courage to speak in favor of ending the war. Ill be voting my conscience. Because our flawed system is stacked against third parties, my candidates wont win, but I will sleep at night knowing I voted to end the slaughter, for peace, for humanity.

B.A. is a single-issue voter, too, but his issue is the environment:

I am feeling the inflation, but in the long run, the loss of the planet were living on is apocalyptic. If there were a candidate with enough drive and power to introduce serious changes, Id be voting for him or her. If this candidate opposed abortion, Id still vote in their favor. Were in a desperate situation, and there must be a dozen articles every day that emphasize the losses we are in the middle of, but there seems to be a kind of lassitude about it in the country. I no longer think my recycling efforts and all the other things individuals can do to make things better are going to make any difference until we massively alter our country. I know other countries like China are contributing to emissions, but thats no excuse for Americas inaction. Ill give up stuffIll pay morebut I need someone to take charge.

Read: 19 readers on the rise of dating apps

The same issue alienated Ryan from the GOP:

Politically Ive been mostly independent in my life and have voted for candidates from both parties. That is until recent years, and the most important reason for this is the Republican Party's refusal to accept/engage in climate change. There are many topics that are important, but its hard to compare the importance of this or that with the issue of whether we will have a viable and sustainable planet to inhabit and share with all its wondrous life forms.

Harold is disgusted by the GOP on behalf of Trump supporters he believes it has manipulated and harmed:

I have always considered myself politically moderate. In the past I even identified as a conservative, and likely still would, had someone like John Kasich won the Republican nomination in 2016. Instead I voted for Hillary Clinton and split the rest of the ticket, voting for Patrick Toomey for Senate. Since then, I have voted only for Democrats in each subsequent election. Perhaps there are Democrats who are equally disillusioned by their party as I am with Republicans. We are prisoners of our experiences, and I can speak only of the failings I see in a group I once identified as being a part of. For me those failures are so great that the party needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. Once it stood for principle and character. Now those in charge are opportunistic blobs preying off of people genuinely struggling for a sense of purpose. They have access to the truth, but they feed lies to their supporters. Countless livelihoods were ruined as they were sent off to fulfill quixotic fantasies of overthrowing the government on January 6 or defeating the deep state as they charged FBI field offices We all deserve better, and therefore I will never vote Republican again so long as this sickness prevails. Something this broken can be found only in the crushed hopes, dreams, and lives of the individuals they trample on to ascend to power. It has to stop.

GE pledged to vote for the candidates who embrace individual freedom instead of central government:

This nation has 50 states, and each state is very different. The people in those states have different needs and desires. Allowing maximal freedom for local and state populations to decide on which laws will dictate social behavior seems more logical than a central government forcing a one-size-fits-all policy across 330 million people. I have no problem voting for any candidate regardless of party if they come down more on the side of individual freedoms.

Holly will vote for a losing candidate:

I intend to throw away my vote. By that I mean that I will vote for the candidates who show the most libertarian tendencies, in the vain hope that we can turn away from the lefts abiding faith that more regulations and government meddling will solve our problems, and from the rights abandonment of free trade and of faith in individuals ability to serve their own best interests. Very few candidates have anything that could remotely be considered a libertarian point of view. Free speech and freedom of association have fallen victim to the intolerance of both left and right. Im afraid my choices this November will be pretty limited, but I cant bring myself to abstain from voting.

And Dorothy is an undecided voter:

This is one of the hardest election seasons to make sense of in my lifetime. I am 60, female, and highly educated, and have been registered as Democrat, independent, and Republican at different times. I abhor party politics in general, because I regard parties as marketing ploys. They are based only very loosely, if at all, on principle. Mostly, they are based on changes in where the wind is blowing at any given moment, with only the most macro, overarching concepts a constant. Republicans dont like centralized authority; Democrats dont like concentrations of wealth. Republicans think that government writ large is the problem; Democrats think it is a solution. The rest is up for grabs.

For what it is worth, I believe that government, as it actually exists in 3-D, is a huge problem. It invades spaces that should be left to private decision making, negotiation, and exploration. It is a barrier we all must cross, and nine times out of 10, there is little to no payoff for the impediments it throws in our way. We need regulation and law enforcement, but we most certainly do not need a bloated, corrupt, sluggish, inefficient bureaucracy that any sentient human can see now exists to protect its empire and feed itself.

I speak from some experience. I spent years living in Washington at the beginning of a legal career and later worked on Capitol Hill. I despise politics as religion, which it clearly has become. Both parties have come unhinged, and neither really cares about how its actions or words affect the country. They care about preserving and growing their power.

With that as the background, abortion rights (and other civil liberties) and the economy are tied in my mind as the most important issues in the upcoming election. That means I am in a bit of a pickle. I am too smart to fall for the comical justifications and falsehoods the Democrats offer for their endless tax-and-spend policies, which are hurting us very badly and will continue to do so. No household or company could afford to operate in such a fiscally irresponsible manner, and it is a massive betrayal of trust that our elected officials do so on a regular basis (with other peoples money) while draping themselves in the appearance of virtue. And I am far too principled and worried about our freedom to love whom we please and do what we like with our adult bodies to ever throw myself behind the piggish, repulsive desires of the Republicans who want to impose their own Leave It to Beaver fantasies on those of us who live in the real world.

I have no idea what will drive my vote this year. I will vote for whichever candidates are willing to do the hard work of governing with fairness, intelligence, and independence of thought.

I could publish a half-dozen more notes from former Republicans turned off by Trump and Trumpism, but were running long already. Thank you to everyone who wrote regardless of perspective, and if youre voting for Republicans this November, I would love to hear from you, too.

Read more from the original source:

The Weight of Trump - The Atlantic

Half a century ago, the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (Tazara) stood out as a crucial symbol of Africas struggle for independence. The 1,860km-long railway connects Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia with Dar es Salaam at the Indian Ocean.

In November 1965, the unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesias racist regime had left newly independent Zambia extremely vulnerable to its hostile southern neighbour. Zambia, a landlocked country, remained highly dependent on transport routes through Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. It relied on these to import essential goods such as oil and coal, and to export copper, its biggest source of revenue.

To address this vulnerability, then president Kenneth Kaunda sought an alternative route to the sea. He found an ally in Tanzanias Julius Nyerere. The idea of the Freedom Railway (Reli ya Uhuru in Kiswahili) was born.

The two leaders tried to solicit funding. But the World Bank, several western governments and the Soviet Union declined. Nyerere and Kaunda turned to Beijing.

The Tazara became Chinas biggest foreign aid project, costing about US$415 million at the time. It was financed through a combination of interest-free loans and commodity credit arrangements.

Tazaras construction between 1970 and 1975, and inauguration in 1976, were steeped in anti-imperialist narratives that emphasised Sino-African solidarity. The network significantly boosted Chinas influence across Africa and deepened its social, political, cultural and economic ties with Tanzania and Zambia. The railway is still frequently invoked by officials on both sides as the cornerstone for the all-weather friendship between Africa and China.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Tazara transported a significant share of copper and mining inputs for Zambias state-owned mines. The railway increased the mobility of the rural population in both countries. Trading centres and small businesses emerged at its dozens of stations.

The railway recorded its peak performance in 1977/78, when it transported 1.27 million tonnes of cargo. But it never came close to its design capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year.

From the late 1980s onwards, liberalisation of the transport sector and the privatisation of Zambias mines resulted in fierce competition from road transporters.

The eventual demise of white minority regimes in the region further diminished Tazaras geopolitical significance. Despite longer distances, a higher proportion of Zambias trade started to move along the southern corridors via South Africas efficient ports.

Inadequate management structures and chronic under-investment in infrastructure and rolling stock have amplified the steady decline of Tazaras cargo and passenger services since the 1990s. The shareholding governments had to regularly inject funds for outstanding salaries and urgent repairs.

In recent years, political will to refurbish the Freedom Railway not least to reduce the expensive wear and tear on roads has grown. However, tight public finances have prevented a major recapitalisation.

In August 2022, Zambias President Hakainde Hichilema made his first visit as head of state to Tanzania. After meetings with his counterpart Samia Suluhu Hassan, they announced that the two governments had agreed to rehabilitate Tazara. They sought to upgrade its tracks from Cape gauge (1,067mm) to standard gauge (1,435mm) through a public-private partnership.

An upgrade to standard gauge would enable the Uhuru railway to interlink with Tanzanias new standard gauge railway. The standard gauge tracks have meanwhile reached the Dodoma region. Contracts for extensions to Tabora (about 740km to the north-west of Dar es Salaam) and Mwanza (about 350km further north) have already been awarded. An inter-governmental agreement between Rwanda and Tanzania to build a line from Isaka (on the Tabora-Mwanza route) to Kigali was signed in 2018. Further connections to Burundi, the DRC and Uganda are planned.

But upgrading Tazara to standard gauge would be expensive and hence less attractive for a private investor. It would also pose connectivity challenges in Zambia. Zambias national network still operates on Cape gauge, as do South Africas and Zimbabwes.

A senior Tanzanian official with knowledge of the matter told me that the standard gauge upgrade was part of a long-term plan under the African Unions Agenda 2063. The immediate objective is to rehabilitate the existing infrastructure.

Since its inauguration, Tazaras impact has gone beyond the immediate goal to remedy Zambias transport emergency. The railway transformed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Tanzanians and Zambians who lived or decided to settle along its route. This is meticulously documented by the historian Jamie Monson in her formidable book Africas Freedom Railway.

Economically however, Tazaras glorious days have long passed.

In the 2014/2015 financial year Tazara conveyed only 87,860 metric tonnes of cargo. According to its own estimates, it needs to transport at least 600,000 tonnes a year to cover its costs.

The situation has improved slightly since then, as a new management team brought down travel times and attracted new clients. Tazaras governing bodies also decided to allow private operators to use its tracks.

Yet, the challenges for the company remain huge. The biggest one is the outdated, in some cases inoperative, infrastructure. Dilapidated tracks, bridges and buildings, a dysfunctional signalling system and insufficient rolling stock prevent Tazara from meeting market demands.

The Tazara Authority is also grappling with crippling debts.

In 2016, the shareholding governments under the rigid control of the late President John Magufuli rejected a 30-year concession proposed by a Chinese consortium. Irreconcilable differences about the terms and conditions arose which I documented in an article titled Win-win contested.

Evidently, the times have changed. China is now a global political and economic powerhouse. Faced with massive overcapacity in its home market, the countrys construction and railway firms are seeking opportunities elsewhere. For Chinese firms Tazara is no longer an aid project but an investment opportunity.

Under Hichilema and Hassan there seems to be new momentum for the privatisation of the Freedom Railway. This is for several reasons.

Hichilema has long been considered a free marketeer. Hassan, for her part, has markedly departed from Magufulis confrontational approach to foreign investors. She has openly called for more public-private partnerships.

In addition, there is the factor of mounting fiscal pressure felt in Lusaka and, in recent years, also in Dodoma.

Under Zambias recently agreed International Monetary Fund rescue package all state expenses will be put to utmost scrutiny.

For its part, Tanzanias sovereign debt has rapidly increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Bank adjusted its assessment of the countrys risk of debt distress from low to moderate early this year. As I recently argued in the Review of African Political Economy, Africas current debt crisis is likely to lead to a new wave of privatisations across the continent.

China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation was recently tasked with conducting yet another feasibility study for Tazaras rehabilitation. It sent a 40-person delegation to visit Tazara in early September 2022.

The train towards privatisation seems to be picking up speed.

But the issue of incompatibility between old and new networks shows that Africas current railway renaissance requires profound regional and continental coordination and planning. Integrating Africas railways will be a monumental task, considering that the greater part of the continents network still operates on Cape or metre gauge a colonial legacy that hampers railway inter-connectivity to this day.

Go here to see the original:

Tanzania and Zambia want to upgrade the 'Uhuru Railway' but can they? - The Conversation Indonesia

The power sector in India is increasingly becoming a site of contestation between the Centre and the states. Much of the recent confrontation between the two can be traced to the distribution segment the weakest link in the power chain. Over the years, the central government has formulated various schemes to turn around the financial and operational position of state power distribution companies (discoms). But despite these multiple attempts, the financial position of discoms continues to be precarious. Their mounting losses have increased the fiscal risks at the general government level (Centre and states). As per a recent study by the RBI, a bailout of discoms in 18 large states is likely to impose a burden equivalent to around 2.3 per cent of the GSDP of these states. Considering that their weakening finances pose a threat to the entire power chain, the government has, of late, been increasingly adopting a tough stance. Earlier, the Power System Operation Corporation, the national grid operator, had asked power exchanges to restrict buying and selling by discoms from 12 states and Jammu and Kashmir on account of their dues to power generating companies. Now, another site of confrontation has opened up.

The Union government plans to shift to a market-based economic dispatch (MBED) mechanism. This shift to a centralised framework marks a radical departure from the current decentralised, voluntary pool-based electricity market. The arguments in favour of the move are straightforward. Under the MBED framework, the cheapest power from across the country will be dispatched to meet the system wide demand. The architecture would also lead to a uniform clearing price. Sellers and buyers will place their bids for the day ahead market, and an outcome of this will be the discovery of the market clearing price. This process is expected to generate significant savings for consumers.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

However, as reported in this newspaper, the shift to this new framework is creating apprehensions that it could strip states of their freedom. Some analysts have also argued that as inefficient plants are likely to be adversely impacted by this move, it may impact state generators disproportionately. Moreover, as an official said, the market trends necessitate greater decentralisation of markets and voluntary pools for efficient grid management and operations. Considering the system-wide ramifications of this move, the changes to the operations, systems and infrastructure of the players involved, and that this framework is under scrutiny around the world, there is need to tread cautiously. All stakeholders from state governments to load dispatch centres to power exchanges and others need to be consulted at each step in this process. Their comments/suggestions must not only be sought, but the desirability of the policy itself needs to be discussed threadbare.

Read more:

Power games: Plans to shift to a centralised market in power sector must take into account concerns of all stakeholders - The Indian Express

Last September, a professor at the University of Florida wanted to sign a scientific consensus letter about kratom, a tropical tree with pain-relieving properties. The faculty members proposal was forwarded to Gary Wimsett Jr., the universitys assistant vice president for conflicts of interest, who had a question: What did Ron DeSantis, the states Republican governor, think about kratom?

Kratom has been the subject of controversy, as scientists and policy makers weigh its potential benefits against the possibility of addiction and abuse. Oliver Grundmann, the UF professor, had concluded that kratom, at least for the time being, should not be reviewed for global classification as a controlled substance; he sought approval to sign a letter in his role as a faculty member stating as much. But Wimsett wasnt sure it was a good idea.

I do note the DEA has listed kratom as a drug of concern, Wimsett wrote to administrators, describing the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, and it would be important to know where the governor and the state legislature stood on this. If taking this position were adverse to UFs interests (i.e., adverse to the interests of the State of Florida) it would not be something wed want them doing.

Grundmann got the green light to sign the letter. But the discussion about kratom, which has not been previously reported, laid out a rationale with far-reaching implications: A professor opposing the state could be a problem for UF. Six weeks after that exchange, news broke that the university had applied this logic to deny three political-science professors requests to participate in voting-rights litigation against the state. That decision, first reported by The New York Times, set off a firestorm over academic freedom and free speech. A week later, under enormous public pressure, the university reversed course.

A Chronicle investigation reveals that the political-science denials reflected a more deeply ingrained practice than has been previously reported. Reviews of a professors outside activity, such as serving as an expert witness, were typically led by the universitys Conflicts of Interest Program. But awareness of the universitys skeptical treatment of politically sensitive cases was significantly more widespread. Administrators in the general counsels office, government relations, the provosts office, UF Health, the research office, and the deans of the law school and College of Liberal Arts & Sciences all had some knowledge of the approach. There is little evidence, however, that people across these units sufficiently weighed the trade-offs of this practice, which pitted academic freedom and free speech against short-term political considerations.

This article is based on more than 1,000 pages of public documents and court filings, recordings of legislative hearings and collective-bargaining sessions, and more than 30 interviews with professors, outside experts, and administrators. Taken together the interviews and documents portray a universitys radical departure from what many assume to be its purpose: Creating and dispersing knowledge without fear or favor.

The crisis had an unlikely point of origin, tracing back to a period of dawning national anxiety over foreign influence in higher education. Across the nation, there was a new premium on knowing exactly what professors were up to.

In 2020, a select committee of the Florida House of Representatives began a series of hearings, interrogating ties between state research institutions and foreign entities. Concerns about such ties had been churning for a while at the federal level, but Floridas state-level committee was the first of its kind. And lawmakers had reason for concern.

A University of Central Florida lab assistant had shipped submarine parts to China. Her boss, a professor, fled the country, and she was eventually sentenced to federal prison. A renowned cancer center in Tampa cut ties with six scientists, including its chief executive, over allegations that researchers had hidden connections to China. And at the University of Florida, a longtime chemistry professor was discovered, among other things, to be moonlighting as a vice president at a Chinese university. In total, four UF faculty members resigned or were fired after falling under suspicion.

To Chris Sprowls, speaker of the Florida House and the Republican representative who chaired the select committee, these stories felt like something out of a spy novel. Openness and collaboration are hallmarks of the nations research success, but those ideals had left universities vulnerable, Sprowls surmised. We all want to do great things for the U.S. and for the world, he told The Chronicle. But that doesnt mean that we get to invite the robber over for dinner, leave the house, then let them clean us out while were gone.

During legislative hearings, lawmakers identified deficiencies in how universities monitored professors outside work. UF, for example, had relied on an antiquated system in which professors submitted disclosures on paper with little centralized oversight. How were universities going to better defend themselves, lawmakers wanted to know? Marshall M. Criser III, chancellor of the state university system, gave an answer. Universities needed an electronic system for assessing conflicts, he said at a March 2020 hearing. And that system needed to be manned by independent experts, people who will decide if youre in conflict with your employers best interest. That employer, Criser said, is the State of Florida, as well as state universities.

The system Criser described sounded a lot like the one already being developed at the University of Florida. And pressure was mounting at UF to get it up and running across the university.

The new system had a wonky name: The UF Online Interest Organizer, or Ufolio for short. Professors would submit requests for outside work into the electronic system, where analysts would decide whether the activity was permissible.

Wimsett was chosen to bring Ufolio to the masses, overseeing the newly established office known as the Conflicts of Interest Program. A longtime UF employee who had previously worked in the College of Medicine, Wimsett had considerable experience in conflict analysis. His marching orders were to get everyone in Ufolio by the end of the fiscal year, ensuring universitywide adoption of the centralized vetting process and its attendant standards for approval. The stakes were high. Wimsett wrote in a spring-2020 email that state and federal authorities believe we are not doing enough to safeguard the integrity of the institution respecting foreign influence, IP theft, and worse.

Though some professors welcomed Ufolios convenience, Wimsett met some resistance. One law professor provided surprisingly sharp feedback, Wimsett said in an email, rebuking his office for an insipid process. But Wimsett pressed on, with the backing of UFs top brass. When his aggressive timeline encountered some reluctance in another college, the provost told Wimsett to forge ahead: Youve got the moral high ground, he wrote in an email.

Wimsetts task was made all the more urgent in March 2020 with the passage of new legislation, which would soon become law. Senate Bill 72 includes language backed by the select committee requiring researchers at state universities to disclose outside activities and financial interests. Professors need to receive a determination that the activity does not affect the integrity of the state university or entity. Failure to disclose could result in termination.

Wimsett observed in an email that the language represents a much more aggressive stance toward nondisclosure. Faculty who have disclosed honestly will have a good insurance policy against some of the discipline contemplated by the new law, Wimsett wrote in May 2020, whereas faculty who have not disclosed will be in a precarious position.

The idea that Ufolio would help faculty members stay out of trouble was a common talking point among administrators at the time. Brian Cahill, an associate instructional professor of psychology, remembers sitting in on bargaining sessions in which the faculty union and university officials argued over aspects of Ufolio. UF officials always framed all this stuff in terms of: theyre protecting us. Like, this is a protection for us, too, Cahill said. He remembers assurances that the goal of collecting this information was not to hand out denials lightly.

But if the goal isnt to deny us, then why do you have to collect all this data, right? Obviously the goal is to tell us at some point, You cant do this. Otherwise you wouldnt care about all this stuff.

It did not take long for the first cracks to appear in UFs plan. In July 2020, just weeks after Ufolio was fully in place across the university, the dean of the Levin College of Law told faculty members in an email that participating in litigation against the state or a state agency is a potential conflict of interest. A professor must seek approval beforehand via Ufolio, wrote the dean, Laura A. Rosenbury.

Kenneth B. Nunn objected. He and some fellow UF law professors were planning to sign an amicus brief in a case that challenged a state law related to felons voting rights. Im sure you will not disagree, Nunn replied, that advocating on the behalf of exfelons is a laudable public-interest end that falls within the purview of typical activities pursued by criminal-law and -procedure professors.

Rosenburys expressed position would mean that a criminal-law professor could not engage in the practice [of] criminal law at all, without approval, as criminal defense is always adverse to the state, he continued.

In a later reply, the dean offered a solution, of sorts. She confirmed that the university would approve the activity, so long as Nunn and others participated as individuals. That meant the brief must clearly indicate that any law school or university affiliation is included for identification purposes only.

The mandate made the professors outliers among their national peers. In early August, Nunn and three other UF professors joined the amicus brief, without their affiliations, and with a footnote by their names indicating they were signing in their personal capacities. Of the dozens of professors who joined the brief, they were the only ones not to include mention of their institutions. (In another brief, the four professors names appeared with their law school and university affiliations. But that brief included disclaimers noting that the information was for identification purposes only.)

A kernel of an idea in the law-school debate proved to be important. When the university developed Ufolio, it flagged for scrutiny any activity that might adversely affect the universitys interests. That amorphous language gave the conflicts-of-interest office wide discretion.

Theres this catch-all phrase, adverse to UFs interests, which suddenly could just include everything, said Danaya C. Wright, a law professor and chair-elect of the Faculty Senate.

Within UFs Conflicts of Interest Program there was a powerful working assumption: The interests of the university and the state were one and the same. It was not an idea born of thin air. Under Florida statute, state universities are defined as agencies of the state which belong to and are part of the executive branch of state government. Few in higher education, however, would equate a public university with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Neal H. Hutchens, a professor of higher education at the University of Kentucky, said there are important distinctions between universities and other state agencies. If you go to other governmental agencies, youre not going to find academic-freedom statements, said Hutchens, who writes about higher-education law. Youre not going to find a statement at the DMV that says, When you are handing out car registrations, youre supposed to engage in philosophical conversations. Those kinds of statements are not adopted in other governmental agencies because thats not their function. But colleges and universities, at their core, are supposed to be places of exploration and discovery.

Public-college governing boards, like Floridas Board of Governors, were created in part to establish a buffer between universities and the state, Hutchens said.

When you say that the university is no different than any other state agency, Hutchens said, youre setting up a very hierarchical system where employees are essentially subject to complete levels of control. But you cant really have that and have a real university There is a choice to be made.

There is little evidence, though, that the weighty choice confronting UF was discussed or considered before the controversy spilled into public view. John G. Harris, a former chairman of UFs department of electrical and computer engineering, said that he does not recall any mention of academic freedom when his department participated in a Ufolio pilot program. I, and the faculty in my department, would have been flabbergasted if something that we were doing would have been blocked because of political interest, said Harris, who is now dean of the College of Engineering and Science at the Florida Institute of Technology, a private college in Melbourne, Fla.

W. Kent Fuchs, UFs president, and Morteza (Mori) Hosseini, the university boards chairman and a longtime Republican donor, have said that Governor DeSantis had no influence on the expert-witness denials. The Chronicles investigation found no evidence to the contrary. What is clear, however, is that a series of bureaucratic determinations, emanating from the quotidian corners of UFs administrative wing, placed strict new limits on what academic researchers could do. But none of this appeared to have been on the mind of the universitys highest-ranking research officer. David P. Norton, UFs vice president for research, told The Chronicle in a recent interview that his focus regarding Ufolio was limited primarily to the mechanics of the system.

We were just trying to get our hands around, How do we enforce the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of the policy that we have? without the nuances philosophically of something out there that may be at the boundaries, Norton said. We were mostly interested in things that were clearly of concern for the university relative to its conflict-of-interest policies and state ethics laws. That was, at least for my office, our focus and not so much in terms of that extension to freedom of expression.

Norton voiced his unequivocal support for academic freedom. At the same time, he said, questions about expert-witness testimony are not my lane. We dont weigh in on that, he said. Its legal. Testifying in court is outside of my expertise. I would defer to having others weigh in on that.

Wimsett, who issued most of the expert-witness denials, declined an interview request. So did Amy Meyers Hass, the universitys general counsel and Ryan R. Fuller, deputy general counsel. Steve Orlando, a university spokesman, said in an email that the lawyers wont be commenting because of pending litigation. Orlando, though, offered a statement: The conflicts-of-interest office would have denied the request of any litigation in which UF or the state was the adverse party to the side requesting expert services because UF is a state entity. This is recognized in state law and, historically, through collective-bargaining agreements.

Brad McClenny, The Gainesville Sun, USA TODAY NETWORK

Joe Glover, the universitys provost, also declined an interview request. In response to a detailed synopsis of The Chronicles findings, Glover provided a short statement via email. When faculty raised concerns about academic freedom, he wrote, the university acted quickly to clarify that it embraces our facultys right to academic freedom and does not consider viewpoint as a determining factor in considering whether to approve or deny outside activities.

Glover also noted that a special committee of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the universitys accrediting agency, had reviewed UFs revised approach to conflicts and found that it raised no questions about academic freedom. The committee did, however, determine that the university had paid too little attention to the potential problems with its processes regarding academic freedom before the controversy.

If there was a lack of discussion about these issues, it cannot be attributed to a lack of awareness among UF administrators. Public records show that the universitys posture toward politically sensitive cases was understood across a wide range of people in multiple units. Wimsett, who led the office, forwarded key decisions and the underlying rationale to COI staff. The general counsels office and Mark Kaplan, vice president for government and community relations, were directly involved in providing language for one of the political-science professors denials, according to David E. Richardson, dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, who spoke at a faculty meeting about having issued the denial. While the Conflicts of Interest Program sets, maintains, and enforces policy on conflicts of interest, the dean said, it would be inappropriate to view them as an independent body. On potentially, say, controversial issues they take cabinet-level consultations when needed, referring to Fuchs presidential cabinet.

Richardson and Kaplan declined interview requests.

It happened in quick succession. In the space of about three months, beginning in July 2021, UF rejected five professors requests to participate in litigation involving the state, citing conflicts of interest. The group included the political-science professors Daniel A. Smith, Michael P. McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin, all of whom requested approval to participate in voting-rights litigation. In addition, UF turned down two pediatrics professors, Jeffrey L. Goldhagen and Mobeen H. Rathore, who sought approval to participate in cases related to mask mandates.

Goldhagens case set off a flurry of conversation among university officials, who weighed what it would mean to deny the professor. Goldhagen was a vocal critic of the governors executive order aimed at prohibiting school mask mandates, and the professor had been quoted in recent news articles on the subject.

On August 10, 2021, Mark L. Hudak, chair of the pediatrics department at Jacksonville, informed Linda R. Edwards, dean of the College of Medicine there, that Goldhagen planned to participate in two cases that are contesting the governors ban of mask mandates.

He intends to do this as a private citizen, Hudak wrote, but his expertise is inextricably bound to his medical experience and his UF employment.

Soon others were alerted, including Bill Young, now chief legal officer at UF Health; Wimsett; Eric H. Conde, an associate dean in the College of Medicine at Jacksonville; and Randall C. Jenkins, senior vice president and general counsel for UF Health. (Jenkins is the stepbrother of Jack Stripling, one of the authors of this article.) The following morning, Goldhagen submitted disclosures in the Ufolio system, requesting approval to participate in the cases. Less than an hour later, Young emailed Wimsett: Do you have five minutes to talk today or tomorrow? Txs.

Several of the emails that followed, some of which included a UF lawyer, were heavily redacted by the university, which cited an exemption for work product. But the emails establish that Wimsett consulted a bevy of university officials in the hours before denying Goldhagen. The circle of people on the emails include: Fuller, the deputy general counsel; Glover, the provost; Kaplan, the government-relations official; Colleen G. Koch, dean of the College of Medicine in Gainesville; David R. Nelson, president of UF health.

Fear of blowback seems to have been palpable. At a politically contentious moment in the pandemic, UF was about to shut down one of its own experts. And he wasnt going to be happy about it. In an email to Fuller, Wimsett sent links to two news articles in which Goldhagen was quoted in support of mask mandates. In one article, Goldhagen said that sending children into unmasked environments was equivalent to putting them in a toxic swamp of Covid.

Hes not shy, Wimsett wrote. This could go south very quickly. (Wimsett then sent the links to Young, the chief legal officer.)

In another exchange, Hudak, the department chair, asked Wimsett what would happen if Goldhagen participated in the litigation without approval.

In my opinion Dr. Goldhagens advocacy is on the side of angels, Hudak wrote. It is morally persuasive and based on the science. There is no internal conflict of interest. This appears to be a political impasse.

I appreciate your comments, Wimsett replied. However, engaging in an outside activity without approval subjects one to disciplinary action.

Minutes later, Wimsett denied Goldhagens requests in Ufolio, explaining that outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.

The language of the five professors denials was not identical, but each rejection reflected the underlying position that a professors challenging the state in court was a conflict because UF itself is a state actor. But it didnt appear to matter whether the state or governor were even named defendants. Opposition to a state policy position was enough to trigger denial. One of the mask-mandate cases, for example, involved parents suing the Duval County School Board, challenging a requirement that grade-school children wear face coverings. As Wimsett explained in his denial, participating in litigation contrary to the states position was a nonstarter. The State of Florida has articulated a position against mask mandates, Wimsett wrote to Rathore. The Duval County School Boards mandate is contrary to this position.

(The language of this denial has not been previously reported, and Rathore has not publicly discussed the matter. He declined interview requests from The Chronicle.)

It was around this same time that UF officials discussed the proposal related to kratom. Grundmann, a clinical professor, had first asked an associate dean and a department chairman whether he could sign the scientific-consensus letter in his capacity as a UF faculty member. The request was eventually forwarded to five administrators, including Wimsett. In an email to Norton, the research vice president, and Chris J. Hass, associate provost for academic and faculty affairs, Wimsett said that it was important to establish where the governor and the state legislature stood on kratom. But Kaplan, the government-relations official, said he did not have significant concerns about faculty members with subject-matter expertise on this topic signing on to this scientific consensus letter.

Meyers Hass, the general counsel, was consulted about the kratom letter as well. Wimsett said that her office would have more immediate awareness of things on the legislatures radar. But it is unclear what Meyers Hass said; the university redacted her response, saying it was an attorney work product. (Amy Meyers Hass and Chris Hass were previously married.)

In the end, the kratom case concluded without incident. Wimsett did his own research, uncovering a few filed bills but nothing with traction. Grundmann signed the letter. In emails to The Chronicle, he and Christopher R. McCurdy, another UF professor who joined the letter, said that they did not experience any pushback and had never been told by anyone at UF that they could not speak about their expertise.

In a broader context, though, the exchanges over kratom provide a window into how political considerations figured into administrators conversations about what professors should or shouldnt do. The job of the Conflicts of Interest Program, as outlined by Wimsett in these emails, included researching legislative bills related to a professors expertise. In the emails, no one appears to directly challenge this approach.

David S. Altman and Elizabeth Lynch, who worked as analysts with Wimsett in the conflicts program, told The Chronicle that they were not privy to conversations about the politically sensitive cases that have caused such a stir. But when asked specifically about researching legislative bills to evaluate conflicts, Lynch said, I cant speak to what Gary did. But I certainly dont do that. (Lynch is now acting director and Ufolio administrator in the office.)

Behind the scenes, UF officials cast the expert-witness denials as appropriate and defensible. But things looked different under the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny. On October 29, The New York Times broke the news about the denials in the voting-rights case, describing the ban as an extraordinary limit on speech that raises questions of academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

The news landed like a thunderclap. A complex story that had been percolating for years in the bowels of a university bureaucracy was easily reduced to its simplest form: One of the nations top public universities, rather than risk the good graces of an ascendant conservative governor and his allies, had muzzled its own professors. Whether UF officials had done so on direct orders or out of reflexive obedience was beside the point. In some ways, the second option might have been worse.

The bombshell report came amid other concerns about political interference at the university. Around the time the denials were issued, UF made waves with a fast-track hire of Joseph A. Ladapo, an associate professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who was DeSantiss choice for Florida surgeon general. The doctor, largely known for his skepticism about Covid-19 vaccines and lockdowns at a time when many public-health experts had embraced such measures, had been a polarizing pick for surgeon general. With a tenured position, UF sweetened the pot, supplementing Ladapos government salary and bolstering his credibility in the state. Emails obtained by the news media showed that Hosseini, UFs board chairman and a DeSantis adviser, had sent Ladapos rsum to the president of UF Health before Ladapos hiring by the university.

Its all related, said Goldhagen, the pediatrician, who was told by UF that he could not participate in masking cases. Its all part of the continuum of how a university could prostitute itself to the whims of a politician whose policies resulted in the morbidity of thousands of Floridians.

The denials did not deter Goldhagen. He participated anyway in two masking cases, saying the issue was too important to ignore.

After The Times article broke, the university said that it was only blocking the political-science professors from paid work as expert witnesses; they were free to do so pro bono. Intentionally or not, the explanation steered the conversation back toward the kinds of fears that had set UF on this path to begin with fears of moonlighting professors doing something other than their taxpayer-funded jobs. It wasnt a sustainable argument, though. Goldhagen, for one, said he did not expect to be paid for his work in the masking cases.

On November 5, a week after the Times article, UFs president reversed course, announcing that the professors would be permitted to serve as expert witnesses in cases involving the state regardless of compensation. By this time, the university was under siege. The three political-science professors filed a federal lawsuit, charging that their First Amendment rights had been violated. (Goldhagen and Nunn, the law professor, would soon join the suit, along with Teresa J. Reid, another law professor.) The universitys accrediting agency had pledged to investigate, and a congressional subcommittee would soon follow suit with its own inquiry.

Academics across the nation condemned the universitys actions. Among them were a group of 15 professors, who have served as expert witnesses in election-related cases and work at some of the nations most highly respected institutions, including the Universities of Wisconsin at Madison and of Virginia, and Princeton. In an email to Fuchs, UFs president, the professors wrote, Because the university is not a defendant in this litigation, it cannot claim that its interests are adversely affected by the professors engagement. Rather, administrators are taking the position that faculty must act in a way that does not affect the interests of a funder of the university. In doing so, the university has transformed academic freedom the right to conduct research and teaching without political interference into something that faculty have so long as their work meets with the approval and policy goals of state political leaders or influential university donors.

Even one of Fuchss predecessors let him have it. Charles E. Young, who led UF from 1999 through 2003, emailed the president and Glover, saying he was f------ mad, using dashes to avoid profanity. If correct, Young wrote, that article makes it clear that our university has sold its soul to the politicians.

Bombarded with criticism, UFs president did what college leaders often do in crisis: He appointed a task force. The group recommended that the university alter its conflicts-of-interest policy so that expert-witness denials in cases in which the state is a party would, in theory, be vanishingly rare. On November 23, Fuchs accepted the groups recommendations, which included the suggestion that UF create an appeals process. The task force also recommended that UF establish an advisory committee to review proposed denials of expert-witness requests for cases involving the state. (Under the new procedures, several requests that would previously have been denied were approved, the committee of UFs accrediting agency said in its recent report).

In early 2022, as the controversy cooled, Wimsett quietly left the university, joining a private law firm in Gainesville. Brian J. Power, who had been director of administrative services for the conflicts program, also moved on, taking a director position with the deans office at the UF College of Medicine at Jacksonville. (Power did not respond to emails from The Chronicle.)

In Wimsetts place is Carolyne St. Louis, who, in May, became UFs assistant vice president for conflicts of interest. St. Louis cannot speak to how the office approached conflicts before her arrival, she said in a recent interview. But political considerations are not part of the universitys evaluation process now, she said. Were not looking at political interests at all when were reviewing these disclosures, said St. Louis, who previously worked for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The political climate should not impact whether or not somebody gets approved or not. Then its not a fair process.

Orlando, the university spokesman, said that UF is in the process of drafting new policy language, which will explicitly affirm that the university does not discriminate against professors based on viewpoint. The university has never considered and would not consider viewpoint in assessing conflicts, Orlando said in an email, but will affirm that for clarity.

These changes come in the wake of a stinging rebuke, issued in January, by a federal judge. In a 74-page order, Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida said UF could not enforce its amended policy to block professors from serving as expert witnesses in litigation involving the state. Describing UFs new policy as a dolled-up version of the old one, Walker said the policy continued to suffer from myriad constitutional infirmities.

In a damning comparison, Walker conjured oppressive images from China, expressing consternation that UF had asserted unlimited discretion to restrict professors speech. Its worth pausing to note just how shocking defendants position is, the judge wrote. Walker took note as well that the university had never disavowed its old policy.

Anyone expecting contrition from university leaders has been left wanting. In his most substantive public remarks on the case, UFs board chairman focused primarily on scolding unnamed professors for a litany of seemingly unrelated transgressions. Some faculty members, Hosseini said at a December board meeting, had used their positions of authority to improperly advocate personal political viewpoints to the exclusion of others. Let me tell you, he said, our legislators are not going to put up with the wasting of state money and resources, and neither is this board.

In a recent opinion column published in the Tampa Bay Times, Fuchs and David C. Bloom, the immediate past chair of UFs Faculty Senate, described as meritless any allegation that UF had been kowtowing to political influence from the governors office. The column takes no overt position on whether the university had erred in its initial approach, beyond noting that UF leaders had immediately dealt with the situation.

While abiding by Judge Walkers order, UF officials continue to fight it in court on appeal. In a recent legal brief, a lawyer representing the university argued that the plaintiffs lack injury. UF had reversed its decision, allowing them to testify. The judges order, the brief argues, prevents the university from enforcing a conflicts-of-interest policy that UF is required to have under state law. The professors are not the victims here, the lawyers said: UF and defendants, in contrast, have been harmed.

Lindsay Ellis contributed to this report.

The rest is here:

Inside the Academic-Freedom Crisis That Roiled Florida's Flagship - The Chronicle of Higher Education