Category Archives: Freedom

In January of 2015, artist Tania Bruguera was detained by the Cuban government. Bruguera had planned to restage a performance artwork about freedom of speech in the iconic Plaza de la Revolucin in Havana, addressing the need for free expression in Cuba in response to renewed diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. Despite her lack of official permission to perform the work, Bruguera proceeded to advertise the event, in a campaign called #YoTambienExijo (#IAlsoDemand); this resulted in her arrest and, subsequently, a series of detentions and interrogations which persist to this day.

In 2015, I wrote this essay in response to those events, but was prevented from publishing it due to the leadership at the museum where I was employed, who argued that my expressing my opinion on the matter would be construed as representing the view of that organization. I, mistakenly, listened to those objections at the time. I publish it today in its full form, in the context of the recent news of Tania Brugueras continued harassment by the Cuban government and the general pressure that the regime is placing on the Cuban arts community and the San Isidro/27N Movement a collective action formed by a group of Cuban artists demanding freedom of expression in Cuba. I feel this piece contextualizes the larger issues around freedom of expression that Cuban artists are contending with, which became a center of debate during Brugueras first detention five years ago. While Bruguera is not the only artist being attacked by the Cuban authorities during this moment, I think the issues described here might be helpful to shed light on the larger debates around art and freedom of expression in Cuba today.

Pablo Helguera, December 2020

* * *

One evening in March 2009, during the opening days of the Havana Biennial, the Centro de Arte Contemporneo Wifredo Lam was booming with activity. Those of us who entered saw a set comprising an orange backdrop, a podium, and, at the center, an open microphone. Everyone in attendance was invited to come on stage and speak their mind, as openly as they wished. There was a palpable tension in the air. The act of offering an open mic in Cuba is unheard of; simple, yet profound in its implications: the voice of an average individual could be powerfully amplified.

Like many artworks made in Cuba, the piece had an official explanation as well a more delicate subtext. Entitled Tatlins Whisper #6 and conceived by Tania Bruguera, the performance was ostensibly a tribute to the first speech Fidel Castro gave after the triumph of the Cuban revolution, famously delivered with a dove sitting on his shoulder. The subtext of the performance, to a perceptive public, was the fact that freedom of speech is forbidden in Cuba, and that public criticism of the regime crosses a line that can never be tolerated on the island.

Many Cubans who took the stage did so tentatively, as if in disbelief about the power that their voices could have. Some nervously rambled about the need for freedom of speech, hardly comprehending the fact that they could hear their own voices projected to a crowd. Others, like the budding blogger Yoani Sanchez, were professional dissidents who used the occasion to articulate stinging critiques of the Cuban government. Later Sanchez would recall, those of us who participated will never forget that minute of freedom in front of the microphone that would cost us years of official insults.

Bruguera, its organizer, has received substantial international recognition for her work. She has also developed an uneasy relationship with her countrys government. This tension finally came to a head in the past few days when Cuban authorities detained the artist as she was planning to present this performance again, this time in a public square, the Plaza de la Revolucin.

The attempted restaging of Tatlins Whisper #6 was meant to test the Cuban government after the announcement that it was reopening relations with the United States. The project seemingly came as a spontaneous response to President Obamas December 17, 2014, announcement of the upcoming normalization of US-Cuba relations. A day after that speech, Tania Bruguera published a manifesto-like letter titled Querido Ral, dear Obama, and querido Papa Francisco, which at first appeared to celebrate the historic announcement of the opening of relations between the United States and Cuba. The artist ended her letter with a proposal:

Today as an artist I propose to you, Ral, to place the work Tatlins Whisper #6 in the Plaza de la Revolucin. Lets open all microphones and let all voices be heard; lets not allow only the sound of coins as what may be offered to us to fill our lives. Let no microphone be turned off. Lets learn to do something with our dreams. [] Lets make sure that it will be the Cuban people who benefit from this historic moment. Nation is that which ails us.

No average Cuban citizen is allowed to organize a public event at the Plaza de la Revolucin. Bruguera knew this well, which is why her defiance and determination to proceed made it even more threatening to authorities. Delivering many more statements along the way, Bruguera traveled to Cuba to reenact her performance on December 26, 2014. The campaign leading up to her performance was branded #YoTambienExijo (I also demand).

Once Bruguera arrived in Havana, she initiated discussions with a range of culture officials, each of whom advised her against proceeding. On December 29, the day before the scheduled performance, she met with Rubn del Valle, director of the Consejo Nacional de las Artes Plsticas (CNAP), who objected to her event on the grounds that it was counterrevolutionary; would only provoke in negative ways; and, ultimately, would interfere with the delicate process of reopening relations with the United States. He requested that Bruguera hold the performance in the National Museum of Fine Arts. She reportedly agreed, but only on the condition that the performance be held at the museum entrance. Del Valle rejected the idea, as he wanted to control admission to the event. In the end, the meeting produced no agreements.

At around 5am on December 30, the police banged on the Bruguera family door. According to Bruguera, they did not announce themselves as the police. They took her away to talk. Other officers seized her computer and every other piece of equipment in their house, telling her family that there was a legal case against her a detail that no one shared with Bruguera herself while she was at the police station. They let her keep her cellphone, but she didnt want to use it, knowing that they would try to track whoever she called.

That was the beginning of a nightmarish three-day episode during which Bruguera was detained, released, detained again, released again, and then arrested one more time on New Years Day, to be released once more on the following day. As of this writing, she remains in Cuba; her Cuban passport has been confiscated she does not hold a US passport and will be sent back to the United States with the instructions that she never return to her native Cuba, where she grew up and where her mother lives. She is reportedly working with a lawyer to present her case to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Those interested in discrediting Bruguera are quick to mention that she is the daughter of a revered fighter of the Cuban Revolution. Usually, this is an insinuation that the artist is so close to the regime that she is somehow exempt from the consequences that other dissidents may suffer or, worse, that as a daughter of the system she should be granted no compassion. The reality, as is often the case, is more complex.

Tanias father was Miguel Brugueras del Valle, a close confidante of el Ch and Fidel, and part of the July 26 movement that brought down the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Brugueras del Valle later served in the foreign service in Lebanon, Argentina, and Panama, and at some point was named Cubas vice minister of foreign relations and tourism. He passed away in 2006. Per her own admission in public talks, Tania had a difficult relationship with her father because of their radically different views about the future of Cuba. Overall, the family tends to be very strict about the separation between the political and the personal.

I met Tania in Chicago in 1997, when she was a rising star in the Cuban art scene. As a Cuban new to the United States, Tania was dazzled by what she saw. She was barely getting used to the world of capitalism (we just gave her a credit card, so that she understands how credit works, I remember her then-partner telling me), and she was hit hard by witnessing the inequality it brings. Her work has always had a strong political dimension, often fighting for human rights and for the disenfranchised. She has produced countless projects in the United States and Europe, most recently dealing with immigrant rights. It is, however, in Cuba where Tania is often at her best, as she can understand and negotiate the delicate social and political tensions better than anyone. I still hold this belief today, after her near-intervention at the Plaza de la Revolucin has threatened to put a stop to all her activity as an artist and free individual. Even if it is regarded as a non-event, this performance that did not happen may also be remembered as the most defining of her career.

It is impossible today to conceive of an artistic action of relevance that would not be immediately mediatized that is, subjected to the debates, discussions, and dissemination characteristic of social media. Some art, in fact, constitutes a de facto social media campaign. And this, in essence, was #YoTambienExijo.

In an insightful article reflecting on #YoTambienExijo, the Cuban-American artist Coco Fusco discussed some of the logistical challenges that Brugueras project encountered, including the communication with the Cuban art world and its use of social media: Brugueras reliance on the internet to convene the Cuban public has provoked a certain degree of skepticism from critics about her intentions. The Cuban people did not show up at the plaza and it is likely that most Cubans on the island have no idea of what #YoTambienExijo is.

While it is true that Cuba places severe restrictions on internet access, Cubans often find ingenious ways to connect with the outside world. A recent connectivity scheme in Cuba, el paquete semanal, involves renting out hard drives with a weeks worth of HDTV programming. The cost can range from $1 to $10, and while the commercial enterprise doesnt have a political dimension, it effectively allows Cubans to watch international television programming and listen to contemporary music. In the art scene, Cuban artists and curators disseminate information via email, which is, paradoxically, supplied by the Ministry of Culture. The local art scene was very much aware of the impending performance by Bruguera, to the point that it had become a running joke amongst them to say see you on the 30th at the plaza.

Of course, the performance at the Plaza de la Revolucin never took place. On the afternoon of December 30, 2014, social media channels were in a state of confusion, with photos of international reporters awkwardly standing at 3pm at the plaza, waiting for some action but Tania was nowhere to be seen. Shortly afterward, it was announced that she had been detained along with other activists and collaborators. Reinaldo Escobar, the husband of the influential blogger Yoani Snchez, was taken away, and Snchez found herself in house arrest. As people speculated about Brugueras possible whereabouts, it was reported that she was in a local prison, wearing a gray prisoners outfit.

The international response was swift. In addition to widespread online protest, the New York Times and the Washington Post soon published articles on the matter, followed by one from the New York Times condemning the Cuban governments actions. The US State Department also offered a lukewarm communiqu expressing concern for the detention of the dissidents. It is unclear whether any of this had an effect on the Cuban authorities decision to free Bruguera on the following day.

Before her second and third arrests, the Cuban authorities had already seemingly decided to launch a social media campaign to smear Bruguera. A regime-friendly blog, Cubadebate, published an interview with Rubn del Valle. In the interview, del Valle built what would become the states primary arguments to discredit Bruguera. More than a performance, I think this is a reality show, he said, characterizing her proposal as counterrevolutionary and manipulative: I told her that the streets are a permanent debate forum, and I proposed to her to do the project in factories, bus stops, in the market. None of these proposals was accepted. Official Cuban channels constructed a portrait of the artist as imposing, intransigent, and unreasonable. Furthermore, del Valle tried to connect Bruguera with far-right, anti-Cuban forces in the United States: [Tanias] main supporters and her information hub are represented by people whose essential project for the future of Cuba is the restoration of capitalism and the penetration of far-right American ideas in all the aspects of our national culture. Still, it remains an open question why the authorities did not consider allowing the performance to proceed and instead find ways to contain it. Their brutal resort to censorship and imprisonment has caused a public relations nightmare.

While Bruguera is a cultural force in Cuba, she has detractors amid the local art community. Take Lzaro Saavedra, who critiqued Tatlins Whisper #6 as a work more about itself than about the issues it purportedly addressed, when he put his two cents in on December 30 in a letter disseminated via social media. Saavedra came to prominence in the 1990s, producing conceptual artworks that are remarkable in their inventiveness and critical observations of social dynamics in Cuba; he is also known for his cartoons, as almost a Cuban version of Dan Perjovschi. In a blog post, Saavedra dismissed Brugueras performance as an aRtivist action and a publicity stunt for which the artist had nothing to lose. Rather than Tatlins Whisper #6, he proposed, it should be called La Bulla de Tania (Tanias Hubbub). He wrote:

for a Cuban artist who may live most of the time outside of Cuba and may use the fight for civil rights as an artivist medium in Cuban territory, any confrontation with the Cuban government will not have a real repercussion in their daily life because it [the government] is outside the sphere of influence for them; on the contrary, to come to Cuba is a means to accumulate work achievements for the international circuit of the global art world by direct confrontation with an authoritarian government.

Speaking with local Cuban artists and curators about the political reality in Cuba can be a confounding experience. While there is frequently outright, if confidential, recognition of the failures of the revolution, there is equally often a fierce belief in the philosophical principle of the revolution itself. For Latin Americans who lean Left, contemporary Cuba can be a difficult experience to process. The romanticism of the story about a little piece of land that one day stood up to the United States to assert its own political course is powerful, and still fuels the spirit of many. Yet the disappointment is palpable, and the way in which the revolution devolved into an ongoing socioeconomic crisis produced by a totalitarian regime is a bitter pill to swallow.

Brugueras performance came as a slap in the face for most Cuban artists a way of saying out loud what everyone already knows but is unable to say. This act alone generated uneasiness, and in some cases, derision. The critical focus was redirected toward the artist herself, to her presumably self-serving intentions and the suicidal stubbornness of doing something that she already knew no one is allowed to do. It is perhaps unsurprising that the artists plight generated more scrutiny than sympathy. This is a common issue with the criticism of activist art, which is often dismissed as both art and activism because it neither delivers on an assumed promise of social transformation nor presents viewers with traditional symbolic or formal elements to absorb and reflect upon as it happens when one is at a gallery. The problem with this kind of criticism is that it unfairly raises the ethical bar in ways that are never done to conventional artworks. In the case of this performance, nothing short of an outright human sacrifice of the artist would appear to have sufficed as a worthwhile action, since critics like Saavedra immediately point to an alleged minimum of risk and substantial career benefits for artists living outside Cuba.

However, such comments suggest that a socially motivated artwork can only be considered successful to the extent that the artist pays a high personal cost. In any case, the consequences that Bruguera suffered for her action were beyond undesirable. The local art community chose to interpret the censorship of Tatlins Whisper #6 as a selfish ploy by an artist benefitting from controversy, even though it resulted in the artist facing a forced exile from her homeland.

Saavedra concluded his post with an almost surreal admission that the absence of freedom of speech in Cuba is a fact known by everyone including the government, only that it doesnt like it to be reminded about it or see it made visible, as it was confirmed by the #YoTambienExijo campaign.

All this unveils a painful reality about the Cuban art community. Cuban artists who are truly committed to the fight for civil rights dont have a viable future, in their career or otherwise. In this sense, the resentment of some local artists for those living in countries that respect freedom of speech is understandable. As Fusco points out in her article, the graffiti artist Danilo Maldonado (El Sexto) has been repeatedly detained for works that are critical of the regime. If Maldonado were imprisoned for his work for a longer term, it is highly unlikely that he would be rescued by an international human rights campaign. The only solutions for a Cuban artist, then, may be to either leave the island or play by the rules and refrain from touching the most delicate political issues, while building an international career on the international art market (as Carlos Garaicoa or Los Carpinteros have).

Tania Bruguera is unique as an artist who has managed to exist in two very complex political and social systems, each of which has its own contradictions and inequities. The fact that this time Brugueras brush with the Cuban authorities almost resulted in her permanent imprisonment makes one think of how artists who become critics of their governments even those with prominent international careers like Bruguera never truly become untouchable (for example, Ai Wei Wei). But whatever may result from this episode, it is clear that Brugueras action has raised difficult questions about the effects of the historic reopening of US-Cuba relations. Whoever ends up writing an art history of the Cold War will need to address the place of Tatlins Whisper #6 as a work that, for better or worse, painfully laid bare the profound obstacles in the freeing of artistic expression within the political sphere.

With inevitable deaths of the Castro brothers, as well as most of those who fought in the revolution, on the horizon, there is an undeniable chance for a transformation in Cuba. For the first time in half a century, a young generation of Cubans may decide on a new course for their country. One can only hope that the Cuba to come will be one where setting up an open microphone in a plaza is no longer a state crime, but an uneventful, even uninteresting, gesture.

As arts communities around the world experience a time of challenge and change, accessible, independent reporting on these developments is more important than ever.

Please consider supporting our journalism, and help keep our independent reporting free and accessible to all.

Become a Member

Continued here:

Art and Freedom of Expression in Cuba, Throughout the 21st Century - Hyperallergic

In a year of extraordinary and often terrible actions taken in response to COVID-19, yet another international civil society group warns that governments are leveraging the pandemic to tighten controls over their subjects. Ominously, it's not the first such warning and comes as even traditionally liberal democratic countries step up surveillance of dissidents and crack down on public opposition.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dire impact on civic freedoms globally," Civicus, a South Africa-based group that promotes civil society and freedom of association, reported last week. "Our research shows that governments are using the pandemic as an opportunity to introduce or implement additional restrictions on civic freedoms."

The United States drops in status from "narrowed" to "obstructed" for "restrictive laws, the excessive use of force against protesters, and an increasingly hostile environment for the press." The Civicus rating emphasizes militarized tactics and mass arrests in response to the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted this year. While those protests aren't explicitly linked to the pandemic, they were likely exacerbated by the disruptions and economic pain caused by lockdowns that brought simmering preexisting tensions to a boil.

Unfortunately, Civicus's ratings criteria seem anecdote-driven and rather arbitrary. While the U.S. is (rightfully) dinged for sometimes heavy-handed treatment of protesters (while police in other locations seemingly surrendered the streets to favored political factions), other countries get a relative pass for cracking down on public expression that was specifically targeted at pandemic responses.

Australia, for example, is classified as "narrowed"a better ranking than the U.S.even as authorities arrest people for merely planning to protest against pandemic-related lockdowns. The country is also moving to centralize surveillance of travelers in the name of public health and to ease domestic monitoring of electronic communications.

"Journalists in France have been obstructed in doing their jobs through intimidation and detention while covering protests," observes Civicus, which ranks the country as "narrowed."

Last Friday, 142 people were arrested in Paris during demonstrations against a law that would restrict photographing police officers during such events as protests against lockdowns.

Germany's arrests of anti-lockdown protesters are acknowledged even as the country gets an "open" rating.

Unmentioned is Germany's surveillance of opponents to restrictive anti-pandemic measures on the grounds that they have been "infiltrated by extremists." The "move is effectively a public warning to sympathizers and leaders of the groupwhich officials described as the 'epicenter' of Germany's coronavirus protestsbut it falls short of banning the movement," notes The Washington Post.

The listing for Israelranked as "obstructed"focuses on the treatment of Palestinians. That's certainly an important issue. Still, as Civicus emphasizes governments' exploitation of health concerns to justify expanded authority, it's worth mentioning that the Shin Bet, the country's internal security force, presented bogus information to gain authorization to monitor citizens for coronavirus. "In other words, the committee voted and reaffirmed surveillance on Israeli citizens by the Shin Bet based on partial or even misleading data," according to Haaretz.

That said, the Civicus warning is timely, and the organization's concerns are shared by others.

"The first global pandemic of the digital age has accelerated the international adoption of surveillance and public security technologies, normalising new forms of widespread, overt state surveillance," warned Kelsey Munro and Danielle Cave of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Cyber Policy Centre last month.

"Numerous governments have used the COVID-pandemic to repress expression in violation of their obligations under human rights law," United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression David Kaye noted in July.

"For authoritarian-minded leaders, the coronavirus crisis is offering a convenient pretext to silence critics and consolidate power," Human Rights Watch warned back in April.

There's widespread agreement, then, that government officials around the world are exploiting the pandemic to expand their power and to suppress opposition. That's the case not only among the usual suspects where authorities don't pretend to take elections and civil liberties seriously, but also in countries that are traditionally considered "free."

It's wildly optimistic to expect that newly acquired surveillance tools and enforcement powers will simply evaporate once COVID-19 is sent on its way. The post-pandemic new normal is almost certain to be more authoritarian than what went before.

Several organizations make attempts at rating freedom around the world, such as the Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders and the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. The more holistic assessmentssuch as those by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watchtend toward narrative summaries rather than comparative rankings. That may well reflect the difficulty (seen in the Civicus rankings) in fairly gathering and weighting governments' treatment of their citizens across a multitude of categories.

For my money, the best effort to date that lets us compare countries and see the extent to which we're becoming more or less free is the Human Freedom Index published by organizations including the Cato Institute, Canada's Fraser Institute, and Germany's Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. Last published in 2019, that "global measurement of personal, civil, and economic freedom" uses 76 indicators including rule of law, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and freedom to trade.

That's a lot of ground to cover, and the 2019 publication relied on 2017 information"the most recent year for which sufficient data are available"to arrive at its rankings. Given that 2020 still has several weeks in which to throw fresh hell our way, we likely have to wait a couple of years to discover whether countries have held their rankings (the U.S. came in at 15) and what those rankings mean in a changing world.

But with Civicus only the latest organization to point out that "the COVID-19 pandemic has had a dire impact on civic freedoms," we don't need detailed rankings to know that authoritarian-minded government officials have found opportunity in public health fears.

View post:

A New Warning That International Pandemic Responses Are Eroding Freedom - Reason

On the eve of Thanksgiving, just as many Americans were relaxing into a significantly diminished holiday shadowed by the many crises roiling the United States and the world right now, a long-respected colleague of mine sent an email to members of my university, drawing our attention to an opinion piece hed just published in Inside Higher Ed. In his email, addressed to university leaders and members of the Towson University Academic Senate, which I chair, he urged that it is critical for those who abjure academic freedom to reconsider their ways, under which was a link to his opinion piece.

As Richard Vatz is undoubtedly aware, the Latin roots of abjure combine a prefix (ab-) that signifies a movement of rejection (away or off) with the verb jurare, to swear or to witness. Following his demand, I feel compelled to bear witness against several troubling points in his essay, claims he makes that reflect directly upon important issues of academic freedom and diversity in the university.

In his opinion article, Vatz criticizes the Academic Senate (our faculty senate) for not supporting his proposal to include ideological perspectives in the categories protected in the hiring and treatment of Towson employees because, he contends, conservatism is under attack. Opting not to cite the definition of academic freedom that the 1940 American Association of University Professors Statement on Academic Freedom describes -- a definition that confines the parameters of academic freedom to research, publication and the classroom -- Vatz in his editorial instead quotes the AAUPs language on the value of academic freedom. Since institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good, therefore academic freedom is necessary and important in order to ensure the free search for truth and its free exposition.

It is, in fact, this aspect of academic freedom that subverts Vatzs claim that conservatives arent welcome in universities today by revealing the flaw in his argument. Our ideological values frame who we are, often without us knowing it. That is how ideology works, as Karl Marx noted nearly two centuries ago. We absorb ideological values from many contexts: our parents and other authority figures and -- most of all -- the cultural products we consume. Every person, therefore, has a distinct idiolect (as Roland Barthes terms the lexicon of ideological values that we each possess) that frames their perspective.

Seen in this way, the phrase ideological perspective appears somewhat redundant. Ones perspective is framed by ideology -- again, most often in ways that were unaware of. Our ideological values often determine our political perspective, and Vatz makes it clear, in his conflation of ideological perspective with conservatism, that political perspective is what he has in mind.

This is a crucial difference, as political perspective should not be a factor in faculty hiring or any other aspect of being a faculty member, because the expression of political perspective shuts down the free inquiry and exchange that academic freedom protects -- as Vatz himself notes. Rather than a reluctance to include conservatives, we are seeing a reluctance to hire or include anyone of any ilk who is not going to listen and be open-minded and have respectful exchange; that is, the resistance to conservatives that Vatz identifies is rather a desire to protect academic freedom, to protect free exchange. What he interprets as a resistance to conservatives is rather a resistance to ideologues -- which in todays political climate are more present than ever.

I would not express my political perspective in a job interview, in a meeting or in the classroom. How would anyone know if Im conservative or liberal? That is an inner mind-set, and if Im a good teacher or leader, Im not going to show it on the outside, because that claim to right values -- which is what we are claiming when we choose one political position over another -- shuts down dialogue. At the point that one claims a political position, one makes a claim upon what is true or right in terms of the city (literally) or society (more broadly); and once we lay claim to truth, we are no longer seeking it. Making a claim to being right defeats the purpose of higher education as Vatz describes it in his editorial, which is the search for truth protected by academic freedom. For that reason, despite what our current U.S. president and his followers say about higher education these days, I spend my days teaching students not what they should think, but rather how to think critically, to think for themselves, and to examine the foundations of their assumptions.

Levels of Victimhood

Examining the foundations of Vatzs assumptions of bias against conservatives in that senate meeting reveals a troubling motivation of his that, like ideology, subsists beneath his more overt claims. He claims that the most conspicuous discrimination in the academy is that against conservatives and conservative thought -- as he puts it in a recent Maryland Reporter editorial written in response to our universitys recently issued Strategic Diversity Plan. This argument is echoed by Vatzs assertion, in his Inside Higher Ed opinion piece, that conservatives are the most discriminated-against employees in higher education.

By using the superlative adverb most, Vatz is making a point of comparison, elevating the plight of conservatives above any other forms of discrimination. This point is obvious in his claim that public colleges and universities are ostensibly but falsely obsessed with diversity. The motivation for his recent Maryland Reporter editorial makes this issue even more clear, since that piece was written to criticize a plan aimed at increasing all modes of diversity in the university, particularly racial diversity. Vatzs claim that programs to increase diversity in higher education are false (and in claiming what is false he is thereby making another claim to truth) emerges from his feeling that increasing racial diversity in colleges and universities should not be a primary concern, that its overemphasized. As he sees it, the bias against conservatives is much more dire and conspicuous.

This is simply an impossible claim. While ideology and politics, conservative or liberal, may be somewhat manifest in ones fashion choices (cf., Cambridge Analytica), in large part our ideologies are not conspicuous at all, to ourselves or others. Even the political perspectives that we claim are not visible or knowable to others until we speak them aloud. By contrast, as Frantz Fanon and many others have noted, the color of a persons skin is always obvious. In the first paragraphs of his essay The Fact of Blackness, Fanon describes his own experience of being objectified, at first sight, on the basis of his skin color. Such immediate objectification simply isnt going to happen on the basis of ideology, because ideology is not conspicuous by definition.

Fanon explores this difference further by means of a similar comparison between racial prejudice and bias against those who are Jewish or Catholic. He grieves the persecution which the Jewish people have suffered throughout history, particularly the Holocaust that occurred just a few years before he wrote this 1952 essay. But in empathizing, he also notes a difference: I am given no chance. I am overdetermined from without. I am the slave not of the idea that others have of me but of my own appearance. Fanon is suggesting here that his appearance immediately influences what others think of him, allows bias against him long before he might open his mouth and express his thoughts or ideological views.

Discrimination against a race is, in other words, vastly different from discrimination against an ideological viewpoint, which can happen only once one expresses that perspective to others.

I am old enough to recognize that, over the course of time, sometimes conservatives are in power, and sometimes liberals may seem to rule the day. This variability, this give and take, is the greatest flaw in the comparison Vatz makes between his perceived discrimination against conservatives and the racial discrimination that our university is working hard to rectify, leading the way toward greater racial diversity (among other forms of diversity) in higher education.

For, as far as I know, weve never had any actual laws that prevented conservatives -- or liberals -- from marrying the men who impregnated them, from inheriting property or from attending schools of quality equal to the schools of those in power. These legal prohibitions inscribed a wealth, property and educational disparity that continues to resonate today. Those laws made it not only acceptable but mandatory that certain races couldnt build the kind of wealth that comes with real estate and social position, maturing over generations. In other words, the resonances of those legal decisions continue to present real and significant economic hurdles to our students of color -- students who deserve as American citizens to have the same potential for achievement as anyone else in this country.

It is because of these historic legally imposed and intentionally hobbling limitations aimed particularly at people of color that we have a responsibility to address the dearth of racial diversity in the academy. We have a responsibility not just to profess support but also to be proactive in working to rectify the legal wrongs of the past that still have a profound impact upon the economic status, social position and opportunities of people of color today, particularly African Americans. Any comparison between racial discrimination and ideological bias or political perspective falls flat in the face of such facts. That is why there was no second to Vatzs motion in the Academic Senate. In fact, I think most people in the room that day were astounded at the blind audacity of his implicit comparison.

Comparing levels of victimhood, of course, is never productive. That there is bias at all, against anyone, is beyond regrettable. As academics and scholars engaged in the search for truth, we all have a responsibility to do whatever we can to address and ameliorate bias whenever possible, to the best of our abilities. Agree or disagree, we must continue to listen to each other and to have a dialogue. That means including differing opinions in the conversation, including both liberals and conservatives.

Indeed, in his recent Maryland Reporter piece, Vatz cites as a proof of bias against conservatives a Pew study that actually doesnt demonstrate such a claim at all. Rather the study reviews Republican and Democrat perceptions of higher education. What it proves -- if it proves anything -- is not that there is a bias against conservatives, but rather that there is a conservative bias against Vatzs very profession. That bias should concern all of us in higher education. It is in making claims to truth -- to being right -- that we open ourselves up to the kind of criticism that President Trump and other conservatives have been making against higher ed, and education in general. The claim to truth is the end of the search for truth -- which, one might argue, portends the end of freedom itself.

Go here to read the rest:

Academic freedom and diversity in higher education (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

See also: Journalists in Utah and elsewhere face uncertain future

Editors note: Reporter Emily Andersen is a journalism student at BYU with a personal and professional interest in the world of journalism and freedom of the press.

Professional journalists have been laid off across the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic, and according to the Washington Post, college journalists have risen to provide important community news coverage in their absence. But the freedom of the press can get a little tricky at a private university like BYU.

According to School of Communications Director Ed Carter, the fact that BYU is a private university means top school administrators technically have the right to restrict what content is produced for school-sponsored media. He said the current BYU administration does a good job of allowing students to express themselves freely in these publications.

I think in general theres still a commitment to allowing the search for truth in the marketplace of ideas, and I think BYU administration recognizes that students need to have some freedom to do that, Carter said.

There have been instances in BYU history when leaders restricted what was published in the Daily Universe. In 1960, there was an edition of the Universe in which the editorial page was left blank out of protest, because the school had not allowed the students to publish information regarding some upcoming construction plans. In 1962, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Universe was reprimanded after he published an editorial supporting one of the candidates for student body president, and he subsequently resigned from the paper.

In the 1980s, a student-produced newspaper called the Seventh East Press received permission from BYU to sell their paper from newsstands on campus, but the paper was banned from BYU in 1983 because of some of the controversial topics the paper covered. According to a story, titled Will the ban roll on? A biased view of a controversial subject, that was published in the Seventh East Press after it was banned, 160 BYU faculty members signed a petition to bring it back.

There have been other student-run papers throughout BYUs history, with varying degrees of anonymity and reliability, including Zions Opinion, which was distributed for eight months in 1966, and the Student Review which was started in 1986 and ran for over a decade. These other publications avoided being as directly tied to the university as the Seventh East Press was.

Stephen Fortuna, a recent BYU graduate who runs the satirical website, the Alternate Universe, said early on he considered applying for the Alternate Universe to become an official BYU club, but he decided against it for fear of being censored by the school.

There was kind of a perception that if we were to become an official BYU organization, we would lose a lot of our freedom of speech, Fortuna said.

Fortuna said he believes that even though the Alternate Universe is mainly comedic, it plays an important role in the discourse surrounding BYU-centric topics.

Our primary goal is to make people laugh but I dont see us only as comedians, Fortuna said. Satire can accomplish some of the same goals as journalism in that we can start conversations about topics.

Fortuna said hes learned about how information spreads online through his experience with the Alternate Universe. In the audio clip below he explains a bit more about how Alternate Universe articles spread on social media, and his views of how the Alternate Universe fits with the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

Carter, who teaches classes on journalism law and the freedom of the press, said its important to have a variety of voices contributing to the marketplace of ideas. He said in the current political climate, journalists are often portrayed as enemies of the people, and he hopes students will really understand and promote the freedom of the press in society.

This semester, Carter has been working with a group of communications students, not all studying journalism, on a blog focused on the importance of the freedom of the press. The blog is written mainly for an audience of college and high-school students.

I think its valuable because as theyve written about free press issues, theyve come to understand better the role of journalism in society and the danger of attacks on journalism, Carter said. Journalists are not perfect but they generally are trying to do altruistic work in the public interest and trying to find and disseminate truth.

Carter said hes glad student journalists at BYU and at other institutions across the country have had the opportunity in the last several months to step up and learn more about the importance of journalism by participating in public discourse.

One lesson learned there is just perseverance, that the news is going to go forward, no matter what. Thats just what we do. Theres a commitment to that and we dont just shut down because its hard. So that lesson, I think, will be good for students, no matter where they go, Carter said.

Read the original post:

How does freedom of the press apply on the BYU campus? - Universe.byu.edu

Exactly one month ago today, Elation Hypercars threw its hat into the ring and unveiled its first four-wheeled beast known as Freedom. The all-electric hypercar, which promises a staggering 1,400 horses and a 400-mile range, is due to be delivered in 2022 and now has its first prototype.

Billed as the first luxury electric hypercar to be handmade in America, Freedom will require a ton of painstaking work before its ready for the road. Still, the fledgling California-based outfit says its making good progress. To help speed things up, Elation is focusing its efforts on engineering a fully working prototype, rather than building a full-size mockup.

According to Motor1, the prototype has been nicknamed Dogo 001 after the Dogo Argentino, an Argentinian hunting dog bred for tackling wild boar. The hypercar, which is being tested and tweaked in Silicon Valley, will likely be just as fierce as its namesake.

To recap, Freedom will be fitted with three liquid-cooled permanent magnet synchronous e-motors developed in partnership with Cascadia Motion, and they will pump out a combined 1,427 hp and 1,062 ft lbs of torque. There will also be an even more menacing four-motor configuration that promises to produce more than 1,900 hp. That will give the silent and sustainable speed machine a zero-to-62 mph time of 1.8 seconds and a maximum speed of 260 mph, which is roughly on par with the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. Both models will also feature a two-speed gearbox and offer all-wheel drive.

Freedom will be equipped with either a 100-kWh or 120-kWh battery pack, and the touted range is 400 miles. Thats quite a bit of freedom indeed.

The Freedoms e-motors.Elation Hypercars

Naturally, the hypercar has a drool-worthy sleek exterior worthy of the estimated $2 million price tag. The exterior features variable-pitch active aerodynamics, while the chassis is fashioned in-house from the finest raw carbon fiber.

Additional Dogo 001 updates are expected to come next year when Elation commences static and dynamic prototype testing. Once Freedom is finally ready for production, each one of the 25 examples will take more than 4,000 hours to complete. Were more than happy to wait.

Check out more photos below:

Elation Hypercars

Elation Hypercars

Elation Hypercars

Visit link:

Elation Unveils a Prototype of Its 1,400 HP Electric Hypercar, and Its Named After a Hunting Dog - Robb Report

Before we discuss the judicial overreach into freedom of speech and expression, which is a constitutional right, let us pause to recall that the Constitution is a document that starts with We the people and ends with in our Constituent Assembly this day of November 1949 do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution ., meaning that it is the people who gave themselves this Constitution. It is the people who, in the democracy called India, have given themselves the right to unequivocally express themselves if they feel passionately about an issue.

Then is it not mandatory that the three organs of the government, while trying to maintain a system of checks and balances, do not lose sight of the fact that they are answerable to the people? Can they indulge in a game of one-upmanship and lose sight of the fact that they are here to serve the interests of the people? Though there are no definite provisions acknowledging the separation of powers in an absolute form, the Constitution has embraced the principle in an implied manner. According to the doctrine of separation of powers followed, the legislature, executive and the judiciary all have separate functions that are maintained via a system of checks and balances to avoid overreach.

What, then, is the role of the fourth pillar, the media? It acts as a watchdog of the three organs. Unlike in the US, where the freedom of press is guarded by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the same finds no mention in the Indian Constitution. Freedom of press in India is considered an extension of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, thus making it a bone of contention for a long time. Freedom of speech in India is subject to restrictions under which it is curtailed for protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.

The Supreme Court, in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, first recognised the essence of freedom of speech in the efficient functioning of democratic institutions. It observed that Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.Similarly, in Union of India v.

Association of Democratic Reforms, the apex court noted: True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry, which makes democracy a farce... Additionally, the Indian judiciary has, on several occasions, been celebrated for its activism where it has played a proactive role in dispensing social justice.

But time and again, the thin line between judicial activism and judicial overreach has constantly been blurred by High Courts across states, severely impacting the freedom of press. Even with several judgments by the apex court to act as a guiding light, instances of judicial overreach have been occurring frequently. For instance, in 2007, the Delhi High Court sentenced the Editor, a journalist, printer, publisher and cartoonist of Mid Day newspaper to four months in jail for carrying a scandalous report and cartoon of former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal.

The newspaper in a series of reports alleged that the sons of the then-recently retired chief justice used his office to profit from a sealing drive ordered in Delhi by their father against several shops and establishments. Though the HCs order was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2007 itself, it took the apex court 10 years to give a final verdict on the issue. More recently, in 2017, the Orissa High Court in the High Court Bar Association v. State of Odisha & Ors put prior restraints on the media from reporting on a case. In February 2017, a woman inspector who had visited the High Court alleged that a few advocates misbehaved with her on the premises of the court.

Soon after the incident, a petition was filed by the Orissa HC Bar Association to stop the media from reporting on the issue claiming that the media was only reporting the woman inspectors version of the story without checking facts of the case. The advocates were able to receive a prior restraint on the argument that ... the entire incident has been scandalised to the detriment of the reputation of the lawyers community and in case such reporting is not stopped by an interim direction of this Court, the reporting by the Print and Electronic Media (on the case) would bring down the reputation of the institution as a whole and the public at large will lose faith in the High Court, which is the highest body of the State Judiciary and regarded as a temple of justice.

The Andhra Pradesh High Courts recent gag order on the media from reporting on the Amaravati land deal case is also a clear instance of judicial overreach. This order was delivered within hours of the FIR being lodged, highlighting the chaos created when the judiciary oversteps its powers. M Sridhar Acharyulu, a legal expert and former central information commissioner, told an online news portal that the HCs orders are against the rule of law, core text of freedom of expression under 19(1) and 19(2). He said the courts have such powers according to a few past judgments, but facts on the ground do not justify the invocation of such extraordinary powers and such a restriction was judicial censorship.

The SC in Sahara vs SEBI (2012) held that the court can grant preventive relief on balancing the right to free trial and a free press. Such temporary restraint was granted by the apex court in the Sahara case, perceiving a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. But the question of prejudicing the trial process will not arise in this particular issue as the case is at the stage of an FIR, said K Nageshwar, a professor of mass communication and journalism in Osmania University, Hyderabad.

There is no denying that the media should cover sensitive cases in a responsible manner and must in all instances avoid media trials. However, infringing on the freedom of the press and putting a lid on the mere reportage of issues is a disservice to the citizens. The issue is of a serious nature because the judiciary acts as the recourse of justice for orders passed by the executive and the legislature, but what happens when it infringes on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens? The ground reality remains that the worlds largest democracy cannot afford to have instances of judicial overreach, especially on the freedom of press. If not safeguarded properly, its curtailment could lead to destruction of democracy.

VijayasaiReddy V (venumbaka.vr@sansad.nic.in)MP, YSRCP Parliamentary Party Leader and National General Secretary

See the original post:

Judicial overreach & restraints on freedom of press - The New Indian Express

Progressives often caricature the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a special legal protection for intolerant Christians. But the Supreme Court delivered another refutation of that distortion last week, ruling unanimously that three Muslim men can sue federal agents under RFRA for alleged unfair treatment by the FBI.

The men say they were put on the no-fly list as retaliation after they refused to act as informants inside Muslim communities. Under RFRA, a federal law passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton, if the government unlawfully burdens religious exercise, Americans may sue to obtain appropriate relief.

Although the Muslim men were eventually taken off the no-fly list, they also sued assorted federal agents for damages. The lead plaintiff, Muhammad Tanvir, told a lower court that he was forced to quit his job as a truck driver, in part because he was unable to fly back to New York after completing long-distance, one-way deliveries. The restriction also prevented him from visiting his sick mother in Pakistan.

But does RFRA even allow plaintiffs to sue government officials in their personal capacities like this, and for monetary damages? A district judge said no, dismissing the claims. But the Supreme Court now says yes in its 8-0 ruling in Tanzin v. Tanvir, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett not taking part. A government, under RFRA, extends beyond the terms plain meaning to include officials, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.

He added: A damages remedy is not just appropriate relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees. It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations. As an example, Justice Thomas cited the Muslim mens wasted plane tickets.

See the original post here:

Religious Freedom and the FBI - The Wall Street Journal

Net assets of approximately of $20m are included in the sale including the companys three manufacturing facilities in New South Wales and Victoria however, Freedom will only packet net cash proceeds of $11m after deducting costs associated with the transaction and related equipment leases.

The company has also agreed to a corporate name change (the Freedom Foods name will stay with the cereals and snacks unit), but also to distance itself from its recent chequered history.

For the 12 months ended 30 June 2020, Freedom revealed a $174.5m loss after tax and over $590m in asset write-downs. Prior to restating its accounts, the company had recorded positive EBITDA of $55.2m in FY 2019.

On posting the results, Freedom Foods interim CEO Michael Perich expressed a deep disappointment.

The results reflect the significant costs of past accounting and operational matters matters we have identified with the assistance of independent experts and are taking steps to remedy, he said.

Operationally, we are reviewing the economics of every product line, every site, every sales channel and every market segment to ensure we are focused on those brands with the greatest potential to deliver profitable sales. We will be removing products that are not delivering value and investing in the ones that are.

Freedom Foods needs to become a simpler business and that includes identifying parts of our business that may perform better under different ownership.

The company lost its chairman, CEO and CFO in quick succession, following the discouraging results. The Perich family are Australia's largest dairy farming family, which own 54% of Freedom Foods.

Freedom is also purportedly looking to sell its canned seafood businesses as part of its revamp plans to maintain focus on its dairy and nutritionals and plant-based beverages businesses.

The majority of the cereals and snacks units 150-strong workforce will transfer to the new owners but some redundancies will be unavoidable.

Perich said the Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR)-backed Arnotts Group will be a highly complementary owner.

We believe the cereal and snacks business will thrive under an owner such as the Arnotts Group, which is committed to investing in the business and employees to ensure a sustainable and successful future, he said.

Arnotts CEO George Zoghbi said the acquisition will accelerate its strategy of entering new product categories and unlocking innovation. The company has procured in a $3.2bn deal by US private equity giant KKR for Campbell Soups international operations in 2019.

The Freedom Foods transaction is expected to be completed on 1 March 2021.

Original post:

Freedom Foods sheds cereals and snacks unit to Arnott's - BakeryAndSnacks.com

New Delhi: India was ranked 111th out of 162 countries in the Human Freedom Index 2020 report released by the Cato Institute, plummeting 17 spots from its position in the last index.

India registered a score of 6.43, which is lower than the average human freedom rating of 6.93 for the 162 countries which were rated by the index. Personal freedom in India was given a score of 6.30 by the report, while economic freedom was rated 6.56.

India ranks above neighbours Pakistan (140), Bangladesh (139) and China (129) but below Bhutan (108), Sri Lanka (94) and Nepal (92).

The countries that ranked in the top 10 are New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (with the last two tied in the 9th place). While Japan ranked 11th, the UK and the US were tied in the 17th place. At the other end of the spectrum, Syria was ranked the worst, followed by Sudan, Venezuela, Yemen and Iran.

The index is calculated using 76 distinct indicators of personal and economic freedom in areas such as rule of law, security and safety, religion, legal system and property rights, and access to sound money.

The HFI covers 162 countries for 2018, the most recent year for which the Cato Institute said sufficient data was available.

Indias ranking and score in the Human Freedom Index 2020. Photo: Cato Institute

Comparing all the countries for which we have the same data available since 2008, the level of global freedom has decreased slightly (0.04), with 70 countries in the index increasing their ratings and 70 decreasing, the report says.

Only 15% of the worlds population lives in the top quartile of countries in the HFI, and 34% live in the bottom quartile. The gap in human freedom between the most free and the least free countries has widened since 2008, increasing by 6% when comparing the top and bottom 10% of nations in the HFI.

Out of 10 regions, the regions with the highest levels of freedom are North America (Canada and the United States), Western Europe, and East Asia. The lowest levels are in the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, the report added.

Women-specific freedoms are strongest in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia and are least protected in the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.

Countries in the top quartile of freedom also enjoy a significantly higher average per capita income ($50,340) than those in other quartiles. The average per capita income in the least free quartile is $7,720.

The HFI also found a strong relationship between human freedom and democracy, with the exception being Hong Kong. However, the report says that the impact of the Chinese Communist Partys unprecedented interventions in the territory in 2019 and 2020 which are not reflected in this years report since it was based on 2018 data are likely to see Hong Kongs score decrease noticeably in the future.

The findings in the HFI suggest that freedom plays an important role in human well-being, and they offer opportunities for further research into the complex ways in which freedom influences, and can be influenced by, political regimes, economic development, and the whole range of indicators of human well-being, the report says.

In a blog, one of the authors of the report said that personal freedom around the world has seen a notable decline since 2008. Overall freedom has also declined, though to a lesser degree, over the same time period. Of the 12 major categories that we measure in the report, all but five have seen some deterioration, with freedom of religion, identity and relationship freedoms, and the rule of law seeing the largest decreases, the blog added.

This is the latest index released this year to have downgraded Indias ranking. In April, India was ranked 142nd in the Press Freedom Index, followed by a fall of 26 spots in the global economic freedom index in Septemeber. India has also registered low scores on indices on academic freedom and internet freedom.

Link:

India Plummets 17 Spots on Human Freedom Index, Ranked 111th Out of 162 Nations - The Wire

Elation Hypercars Freedom is starting to take shape, in the digital world at least, as the EV startup has released renderings of its first prototype, the Dogo 001.

Named after the Dogo Argentino, a South American dog breed known for its strength that is often used in big-game hunting, it previews the upcoming fully functional prototype which will enter the testing phase next year.

The final production model is planned to debut at the 2022 Geneva Motor Show, with carbon fiber bodywork, a carbon-kevlar monocoque and an all-electric powertrain. The base variant is understood to use three electric motors for a total output of 1,427 HP and 1,062 lb-ft (1,440 Nm) of torque, while clients can upgrade if they so wish to an even more powerful model with an extra motor and 1,903 HP.

Video: Take A Tour Of The Rimac Factory Building The C_Two Electric Hypercar

Elation has announced that the Freedom will be able to hit 62 mph (100 km/h) from a standstill in just 1.8 seconds and reach a top speed of 260 mph (418 km/h). Two battery units, with capacities of 100 and 120 kWh, will give it a range of approximately 300-400 miles (483-644 km).

An ICE-powered version of the hypercar, the Freedom Iconic Collection, will join the lineup with a 5.2-liter V10 that makes 750 HP at 8,500 rpm and is paired to a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission and all-wheel drive. The 0 to 62 mph (0-100 km/h) acceleration is estimated to take 2.5 seconds, and top speed will be electronically limited to 240 mph (386 km/h).

With production of a single example said to take over 4,000 hours, Elation plans to make 25 units of the Freedom each year. Pricing for the electric model will start at $2 million, whereas the ICE variant will cost at least $2.3 million.

more photos...

Here is the original post:

Elation Freedom Hypercar Dogo 001 Prototype Is Named After A Dog Breed, Will Bare Its Fangs Next Year - CarScoops