Category Archives: Freedom

Turkish Airlines is yet to apply for permission to operate so-called Fifth Freedom flights from Singapore, which are necessary for the airline to launch flights to Australia something that the Istanbul-based carrier wants to do in just over three months time.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has confirmed to the Straits Times that Turkish Airlines is yet to submit an application to operate Fifth Freedom flights and the airline wont be allowed to operate these flights until it has received approval.

Fifth Freedom rights allow a foreign airline to operate an international flight via a third country and sell tickets on both segments. In this case, Turkish Airlines would be allowed to sell tickets for the flight from Istanbul to Singapore, and the flight from Singapore to Australia, as well as the direct service from Istanbul to Australia.

Earlier this month, Turkish Airlines chairman, Ahmet Bolat, made it known that the carrier hoped to launch its eagerly anticipated flights to Australia at some point between March 15 and March 2024 and that the flights would operate via Singapore.

Bolat also said the airline was in advanced talks with Hollywood superstar Margot Robbie to become the celebrity face of Turkish Airlines ahead of the inaugural flight, although few other details are yet to be released.

Turkish Airlines hasnt confirmed which city or cities it plans to fly to in Australia, although the Australian government will initially allow Turkish Airlines to operate up to 21 weekly flights to Sydney and Melbourne, as well as Brisbane and Perth.

From late 2024, capacity will increase to 28 weekly flights and by late 2025, up to 35 weekly flights will be allowed.

The Straits Times attempted to reach out to Turkish Airlines about its plans, but multiple emails went unanswered.

The Australian government is keen to get Turkish Airlines to launch flights to the country in an effort to increase competition on key international routes and drive down airfares.

Transport Minister Catherine Kinghas faced criticism over her decision to reject an application from Qatar Airways to increase its quota of flights to Australia as it is stifling competition.

No spam, just a weekly roundup of the best aviation news that you don't want to miss

Mateusz Maszczynski honed his skills as an international flight attendant at the most prominent airline in the Middle East and has been flying throughout the COVID-19 pandemic for a well-known European airline. Matt is passionate about the aviation industry and has become an expert in passenger experience and human-centric stories. Always keeping an ear close to the ground, Matt's industry insights, analysis and news coverage is frequently relied upon by some of the biggest names in journalism.

More here:

Turkish Airlines Hasn't Applied For Permission to Operate Crucial Fifth-Freedom Flights From Singapore to Australia - paddleyourownkanoo.com

A nonpartisan group of government transparency advocates has revised its proposal for a citizen-initiated act that would alter the states Freedom of Information Act.

On Thursday, Arkansas Citizens for Transparency again submitted ballot language for the proposed 2024 initiative. Attorney General Tim Griffinrejected a previous iterationof the popular name and ballot title on Monday, saying it lacked enough clarity and parts of it would be unconstitutional.

The revised Arkansas Government Transparency Act did not fulfill Griffins request for more detailed definitions of public meeting and communication between members of a governing body. The proposed definitions are part of ACTs efforts to codify a definition of a public meeting, which has long been unclear and frustrating to members of government and the news media, and broaden the legal definitions of a governing body and communication among members.

The new ballot language did include a definition of government transparency, the governments obligation to share information with citizens. Griffin previously said this term needed a definition in his rejection of both the first proposed act and acompanion amendmentthat would enshrine the right to government transparency into the state Constitution.

ACT disagreed and defended its use of the phrase in its submission to Griffins office Thursday.

As you can see, there is no better word to encompass the breadth of rights we are addressing than transparency, the group said in its email provided to the Arkansas Advocate. The other synonyms do not fully embrace meetings, records, and notice.

Another change to the proposal is the addition of a section that would specify how records custodians must contact requesters and inform them whether the records are disclosable or not.

The proposed act would also:

ACT formed in response to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signing of a law enacted during a special session in September thatshields the security records in questionfrom public access. Sanders advocated forseveral more exemptionsto the FOIA that metbipartisan pushbackand did not advance in the Legislature.

The act would also create the Arkansas Government Transparency Commission to help citizens enforce their right to obtain public records and observe public meetings. The initial proposal sought to put some appointments to the commission in the hands of the Arkansas Supreme Court, but Griffin wrote Monday that requiring justices to appoint commissioners violates the separation of powers clause in the state Constitution.

The revised proposal would instead require the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Senate Minority Leader, the House Minority Leader and the Lieutenant Governor to each appoint a commissioner.

The act would also put the commission in charge of handling challenges to FOIA requests from records custodians. The previous version of the proposal would have given circuit courts this responsibility, but Griffin said this would have violated Arkansas ConstitutionalAmendment 80, which governs procedural rules of the courts.

ACT submittedfourpossibleballottitles, all worded similarly, to Griffins office with the proposed act. The group did the same thing with itssecond submission of the proposed amendmenton Wednesday.

ACT initially planned to submit only a constitutional amendment but later realized that it would best be able to create enforceable government transparency policy by proposing an act to amend the FOIA and an amendment that would make the Constitution support the law, theytold an audiencein November.

Griffin has until Jan. 8 to approve or reject the new amendment proposal and Jan. 9 to approve or reject the new act proposal.

With Griffins approval, ACT may begin canvassing the state for signatures from registered voters with a deadline of July 5 for the measures to qualify for the ballot. 90,704 signatures are required for proposed constitutional amendments, and 72,563 signatures are required for initiated acts.

Both the act and amendment would go into effect Nov. 6, 2024, the day after the general election.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. This article was published with permission from the Arkansas Advocate. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: [emailprotected]. Follow Arkansas Advocate on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more here:

New ballot language submitted for proposed changes to Arkansas Freedom of Information Act - Mountain Home Observer

Irene Corcoles it show us Closet, his latest single in which he shouts out the freedom of feeling free to love anyone, leaving behind what they will say. The young singer from Alicante releases her fifth single to say goodbye to the year and position herself as one of the emerging artists with the most projection on social networks.

With lyrics in English and a video clip in which she gives off a very good vibe while doing the laundry, Irene exposes how outdated the step of coming out is but that, on many occasions, it is still something necessary for people in the that you surround yourself with, just accept who you are.

The one from Alicante moves between several genres, but above all pop and rock and usually combines Spanish with English. Without a doubt, one of the strong and distinct points of her as an artist is that, despite her youth, she is very clear about the messages and values that she wants to transmit with her music. Among the topics that she usually discusses are, for example, mental health or overcoming personal challenges.

Before ClosetIrene launched 5015in reference to his casting number Operation Triunfo 2023 and that has managed to have a great impact on TikTok, with more than a hundred videos with the audio of the song. In fact, ones own Ruslanacontestant of O.T.created a dance for the social network trend.

140k views on spotify!! THANK YOU #ot2023 #5015irene #otcastingfinal #otgala3 #trend #parati #viral #operaciontriunfo

5015 Irene Crcoles

Irene Corcoles was one of the thousands of people who showed up in the summer for the casting of Triumph operationHowever, she was one of the lucky few who achieved the Prime Pass and made it to the final phases. And in one of the many tests that the contestants have to do, the woman from Alicante was the protagonist of a funny anecdote that went viral on TikTok.

After the performances of several colleagues, it was finally Irenes turn who, before starting to sing, introduced herself with this particular confession: My name is Irene Crcoles. I am from the Pase Prime generation, although today I forgot my neck brace at home. Its just that I got up at six in the morning. Oh, my goodness! But it doesnt matterBut here I am! Lets go for it.

As @NoeGalera says: What an edition awaits us! #OTValencia #OTCasting2023 #MusicaEnTikTok

original sound Operacin Triunfo

What Noemi Galeracasting and Academy director, responded with: Get ready for an incredible edition!

Finally, Irene Corcoles failed to enter Operation Triunfo 2023 but with his recent singles he is showing that he has plenty of talent and that he can go very far with his music.

Read more here:

Irene Crcoles releases 'Closet', a single that screams freedom - WECB

Once upon a time a motor mechanic had a wonderful opportunity ahead of him as he pondered designing a racing car. When Formula One was created in 1950, the technical rule book was very simple, such the regulations could have been written on a playing card.

Engine specs set at 1500cc maximum size for engines with acomplressor (supercharger or turbocharger) or 4500cc for naturally aspirated engines. No weight limit either minimum or maximum. Then in 1952 crash helmets were introduced as mandatory but were made from dubious materials and often looked like a soup bowl.

In 1958 commercial petrol became mandatory and alcohol-based racing fuels were banned. The 1960s began in very much the same fashion with a light touch rule book but already huge innovation was taking place.

Cooper built their T51 machine in 1950 where the horse was place behind the cart rather than in front. Rear engines were born. This stopped the drive train having to stretch the length of the car and the weight at the rear created a better balance and more grip for Jack Brabham and Stirling Moss.

Winning five rounds in 59 handed Cooper the constructors title and the enhanced T53 machine won both championships the following year. By 1961 there were no F1 teams running engines placed in the front of the car.

The FIA rule book expanded between 1961 and 1965 to include engine specs amended to a naturally aspirated engine of between 1300cc and 1500cc, no compressors allowed, minimum weight set at 450kg, open wheels mandated, pump fuel only, automatic starter, roll bar required, double braking system mandatory, standardised seatbelt anchorage, fire protection for fuel tanks, fillers and breathers.

Hamilton plan B as 8th title looks remote

Also safety inspections began to be organised which were previously done by local racing authorities, protective helmet and overalls are now obligatory and a flag signalling code is established.

1962 was another big year for innovation as Colin Chapman built the first monocoque chassis racing car the type 25. Rather than rely on a segmented steel spaceframe, off which components such as the suspension mounting points and fuel tanks could later be hung, he instead created a bathtub-like chassis that incorporated their installation from the off.

The chassis weighed a remarkable 30kg but was much more rigid allowing suspension setups to run more softly and the type 25 was very kind to its tyres.

In the run up to the end of the 1960s, engine power was increased as was weight to 500kg, included were electrical circuit breaker, reverse gear, oil catch tank, a rollbar 5cm above drivers head, two-part extinguisher system and cockpit designed for quick evacuation recommendations were made on seat harnesses, fire-resistant clothing and shatterproof visors. Straw bales were banned from being used as safety barriers in response to Lorenzo Bandinis fatal accident in Monaco in 1967.

F1 champ who hated Verstappen explains truth behind Red Bull star

Then in 1968 Colin Chapman nailed it once again and ushered in the new era of Formula One where aerodynamics ruled the roost and the FIA was continually trying to control its use.

Chapman pinched an idea thought to have been pioneered by Texan racer Jim Hall Chaparral 2E and 2F sports car creations. The notion used to lift aeroplanes off the ground was inverted to force the cars to stick to the ground even better.

Entering F1 was front and rear wings and the never engine hunt ever since for more downforce. Chapmans Lotus 49B sprouted a ducktail rear deck for the 1968 Monaco Grand Prix, with driver Graham Hill chalking pole position and the race win.

Brabham and Ferrari returned fire at the Belgium Grand Prix mounting full width wings on struts before Chapman hit back with a rear spoiler sitting atop 4 foot long poles bolt4ed directly to the suspension. However, the extra axis movement stressed the rear setup too much and the wings collapsed at the Spanish Grand Prix leaving Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt relieved to survive two major crashes.

Surprise resignation of Massi replacement

This was the first time the FIA stepped in and by using the technical regulations they banned all moveable aerodynamic features (thereby banning air brakes) and fixed to a sprung part of the car, maximum bodywork height and width restrictions ban the use of dangerous high wings.

The battle then commenced between the FIA and the teams as they each sought to outmanoeuvre the other. Even during the 2023 season the FIA issued a technical directive aimed at preventing flexing bodywork which found its roots back in Chapmans 1968 innovations.

Formula One is not a spec racing series like IndyCar, where the cars a pretty much all the same. The sport has always been proud of its tradition of innovation and each year teams build prototype racing cars with around 20,000 components.

But the regulations have grown and grown over the years and now make up a lengthy tome and some feel there sport is too restrictive something the FIA is also now considering.

Michael Schumacher update from his brother

Nikolas Tombazis who heads up the FIA single seater commission and runs F1 on a day to day basis believes there would be benefits should the FIA move along this pathway.

There is a fine line between too much limitation and clearly this is a technological sport, and has to remain so, he said.

But on that side, with too much freedom, there is then potentially very big gaps between the cars, and thats a very difficult line to follow.

Clearly, if you ask an engineer from a team they will say its too much limitation. Im an engineer myself, I would love it if all cars were a complete technological battle. But we do need to consider that theres other factors at play that are important for the sport.

FIA president warns Netflix not the future

Additionally, compared to the older days, when maybe there was a bit more freedom, we have financial regulations and we have to also try to limit some of the activities that take place.

Mercedes decade of dominance was setup by the parent company investing a reported whopping $1bn in the all new hybrid engines for 2014. Their power unit was significantly better than the rest and this advantage remained for a considerable number of years.

Tombazis addresses this state of affairs noting, you could have teams building some advantage through an R&D project of some sort, and then having an advantage for a long, long time to come, with no chance of other teams catching up with restrictive regulations.

So, theres this line between freedom and having a competitive championship, plus the financial regulations put us in a very small spot. So, I dont think theres a perfect answer.

To improve overtaking further, moveable aerodynamic parts are on the agenda for the 2026 regulations though how they will be used, is not clear at present. This will see a regulation set in 1969 changed for the first time since Colin Chapman fitted his silly looking rear wings on 4 foot long poles.

READ MORE: Hamilton skips Mercedes duties and questions Russell

Go here to see the original:

FIA consider more freedom in technical regulations - The Judge 13

The rules are so complex an engineer with a Ph.D. was baffled. The setting was long the butt of jokes. Combat proceeds at the pace of a courtly duel. And some of the biggest names in video games released competing titles.

But Baldurs Gate 3, a game that lets you talk to spiders and the dead, slip through cracks as a cloud of mist, reveal invisible foes by splashing them with drinks, bargain with a devil, give your eye to a hag and romance an amnesiac priestess or a squid-faced telepath, as you see fit turned into the surprise hit of 2023.

The chief executive of Larian Studios had told his team to expect about 100,000 concurrent players when it fully released Baldurs Gate 3, a role-playing game based on Dungeons & Dragons. A few days later, nearly 900,000 people were playing at the same time.

Actors soon began to hear from players moved by their performances as a debonair vampire and a green otherworldly warrior, among others. Critics praised the games sweeping freedom and the depth of its writing. PC Gamer gave its highest review score in 16 years to Baldurs Gate 3, which went on to win game of the year accolades in Britain and the United States.

The staggering success was no sure thing.

I did not think that it was going to flop, said Josh Sawyer, the studio design director at a competitor, Obsidian Entertainment, and the lead designer on Fallout: New Vegas and Pillars of Eternity. I did not think that it was going to be niche niche. But it was hard for me to see the return on the investment.

See the original post here:

The Spellbinding Freedom of Baldur's Gate 3 - The New York Times

Beulah, North Dakota In an unusual turn of events, coal miners at the Freedom Mine near Beulah, North Dakota stumbled upon a rare and well-preserved mammoth specimen, including a seven-foot-long tusk, during the early hours of Memorial Day weekend last May.

The discovery was promptly recognized for its significance, leading to the sites immediate closure until experts from the North Dakota Geological Survey, the State Historical Society of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land Management could assess and document the find.

Coal miners working diligently at the Freedom Mine made the extraordinary discovery, which captured the attention of the scientific community. The site was secured to ensure its preservation while experts prepared to investigate further.

A dedicated team of paleontologists from the North Dakota Geological Survey embarked on a twelve-day excavation adventure. Their mission was to uncover the ancient streambed where these invaluable fossils were interred thousands of years ago. During the excavation, they successfully retrieved over twenty bones from the mammoths skeleton, including ribs, a shoulder blade, a tooth, and parts of the hips.

According to Clint Boyd, Senior Paleontologist for the North Dakota Geological Survey, Most mammoth fossils found in North Dakota consist of isolated bones and teeth. This specimen, as one of the most complete mammoth skeletons discovered in North Dakota, is both thrilling and scientifically significant. Its worth noting that the mining activities in the region played a crucial role in uncovering this remarkable find.

To ensure the mammoths delicate remains remain intact, the bones were encased in protective plaster jackets and transported to the Paleontology Lab at the North Dakota Heritage Center & State Museum in Bismarck. Here, a meticulous process to cleanse the fossils of sediment and stabilize them has commenced.

Educational Outreach and Public Display Plans

Collaborative efforts between the North Dakota Geological Survey and the Freedom Mine are underway to formulate an educational outreach program. Discussions include potential locations for the public display of these fossils, with the primary aim of sharing this remarkable specimen with as many people as possible. The discovery offers a unique opportunity to learn about North Dakotas prehistoric past during the Ice Age.

During the Pleistocene Epoch, commonly referred to as the Ice Age, mammoths roamed North Dakota, eventually becoming extinct in the area around 10,000 years ago. Various species of mammoths, including the Woolly Mammoth and the Columbian Mammoth, coexisted with other iconic creatures such as saber-toothed tigers and giant sloths. Once the bones are meticulously cleaned, experts will identify the specific mammoth species from the mine, shedding light on North Dakotas fascinating history during this bygone era.

As research and preservation efforts continue, the discovery promises to provide invaluable insights into the ancient past of North Dakota, enriching our understanding of the regions natural history.

Read this article:

Rare Mammoth Specimen Unearthed at Freedom Mine near Beulah, North Dakota - Net Newsledger

The recent testimony of the presidents of MIT, Harvard and Penn before a congressional hearing on antisemitism laid bare the profound challenges faced by academic leaders attempting the difficult task of managing intellectual inquiry on campus, which means balancing often contradictory goals: protecting long cherished academic freedom and First Amendment rights, while also ensuring a safe learning environment that protects students from harm, which might require repressing dangerous speech. The presidents were put on the spot before the nation and confronted with a demand to define the limits of free expression on a college campus.

The presidents were questioned by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who began by asking Penns then-President Liz Magill, Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penns rules or code of conduct, yes or no?

One-by-one, the presidents tried to answer on behalf of their campuses. None would explicitly answer the question without qualifying their responses. The presidents, who had already condemned antisemitism, were trying to balance the denunciation of bigoted, inflammatory statements with the universitys commitment to free speech.

Calls for genocide provide a revealing test case for campus free speech, and a bevy of critics seems to think the presidents failed the test with responses like, It is context dependent. The meaning of any speech is, of course, context dependent, but pointing that out was clearly not ideal in that particular context.

The rich irony of the viral exchange at the congressional hearing is that conservative culture warriors, who are now calling for limitations on speech to protect particular communities of students, have for decades decried campus speech codes that they say enforce a campus-wide left-wing or antiracist dogma intended to change American society.

Although the greatest threat to free speech in education comes, I believe, from the right (think: Florida and Texas), and the sweeping conservative critique isnt entirely accurate, theres some truth to the accusation that censorship is also coming from the left.

We saw it earlier this year at Hamline University, where Im a professor of religion. An adjunct art history instructor was labeled Islamophobic by the chief diversity officer and had a course taken away from her because she showed a work of 14th century Persian Islamic art that represented the Prophet Muhammad.

Indeed, threats to the freedom of speech in educational settings ranging from kindergartens to universities have come from both the right and the left, and from places as varied as the government, university administrations, school boards and groups of students.

In the face of this emerging threat, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression vigorously defends the freedom of speech and expression, and academic freedom on college campuses, in a principled, nonpartisan way. They have a legal defense fund, as well as a research wing that tracks and analyzes censorship, speech codes, student and faculty attitudes toward free speech and its limits, and various forms of silencing, pressure and coercion that serve to stifle speech.

During a weekend in October, I attended FIREs annual faculty conference, which gave me some useful lenses through which to understand the recent uproar regarding the congressional testimony of the three presidents.

The FIRE conference brought people together around a shared set of principles, values and commitments that transcend disciplinary lines. At the conference, we heard from sociologists, philosophers, mathematicians, legal scholars, political scientists and biologists, among others. Virtually everyone at the conference felt that these principles are increasingly under threat from across the political spectrum.

All of the attendees displayed a deep commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and had gathered to learn, strategize and inspire. And almost all had a story involving themselves or colleagues who were silenced or who spoke and paid a price.

There were many important takeaways from the conference, but here are four:

While presenters discussed the threat posed by state censorship and university speech codes, some argued that the most damaging form of repression is self-censorship. That was the argument of Harry Blain from California State University Sacramento, who called student self-censorship the most pervasive and intractable problem. The silencing effect of fear on classroom conversations is a significant problem, both because students are not exposed to challenging views, and also because they are not learning how to disagree with and debate others with different perspectives.

Self-censorship among faculty is also a problem that diminishes the classroom experience for students.

Unlike the latest noisy campus free speech controversy, self-censorship is by definition silent, even though the detrimental effect on students is more consequential. If professors are afraid of being reported, with possible consequences such as the loss of future teaching opportunities (especially for non-tenured faculty), and if they are declining to teach certain perspectives, their students are being deprived of a crucial element of their education. And students who censor themselves deprive the class community of an opportunity to engage with their ideas. They also deprive themselves of the opportunity to learn through attempts at articulating their thoughts on controversial matters and engaging with those who respond.

Self-censorship takes a toll on faculty. I met a professor in the social sciences at a highly respected institution who told me that they are continuously stifling themselves, and they feel they are living a lie by presenting without counterargument the officially approved view on gender and sexuality (the one accepted by most administrators, faculty and students at the institution). When I asked them why not just give some examples of alternative perspectives alongside the approved view, they said that even presenting texts supporting the alternative perspective would almost certainly land them in trouble.

The principle of defending unpopular or controversial views was a central theme of the conference, and the actual expression of such views some of which I myself found disturbing and occasionally even offensive occurred numerous times throughout the conference, both from the podium and around the tables. And this is precisely one of the reasons that the conference experience was so powerful.

The attendees were the most ideologically diverse group of people I have been around in an academic conference setting, and this means that along with the kindred spirits I encountered there, there were people who held views that I strongly reject. The percentage of attendees who hold what most would consider conservative views was far higher at the FIRE conference than in most university settings I have been in (most attendees would certainly consider me to be one of the liberals), and I benefited from the conversations. It was refreshing and instructive to interact with people who were practicing what they preached having spirited discussions about highly controversial issues without anyone claiming to be harmed, trying to silence or shout down another, or throwing pejorative labels at others because of their viewpoints.

There was a willingness, often an eagerness, to talk about highly controversial subjects. Within 20 minutes of first meeting people, I would find myself in a conversation about race, gender, sex, political conflicts, etc. how we address them in the classroom, and what views are increasingly excluded from the academy, often due to self-censorship.

In many conversations people said something like, I wouldnt normally say this in front of people, but I can say it at this conference. This does not mean that they felt comfortable saying something because they anticipated agreement from others, but rather because they knew that anyone who disagreed with the argument would address it with respectful argumentation and debate. The lively conversations among attendees showed that disagreements about sensitive, controversial topics can be carried out with civility, humor and good will.

Arguments can annoy, offend and disturb. But I dont believe that an argument can by itself do harm. We should welcome arguments with which we strongly disagree, as they give us the opportunity to articulate precisely why they are wrong.

Cass Sever from Mount Holyoke College explored the notion of psychic harm, which she described as invisible, unfalsifiable damage to the psyche that occurs in moments of interaction. The problem with an unfalsifiable statement one which cannot be refuted since there are no criteria for evaluating it other than the persons subjective feeling is that there is no way to challenge the claim of harm. In other words, if I believe myself to be harmed, then I was harmed. The claim, therefore, shuts down the conversation.

Imagine a student or professor who wants to criticize the actions of the Israeli government (or Hamas), and their reasoned argument is met with accusations of antisemitism (or Islamophobia) that is labeled harmful. There is no way for the speaker to explain why their statement of criticism is not antisemitic (or Islamophobic), because there are no criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of the label other than the feelings of the complaining person. This approach will result in silencing the speaker unless they want to risk significant consequences for inflicting harm.

Sever argued that there has been a shift in criteria for evaluating harm from objective (harm that can be demonstrated empirically, such as a lost job or a physical injury) to purely individual subjectivity. This has created a problem for universities. Universities are committed to preventing harm to their students and ensuring them a safe environment in which to learn. Many students say that preventing harm is equally or more important than defending free speech rights, so a claim of harm can shut down a conversation or make a particular subject unteachable.

In the case of Hamline University, some Muslim students claimed that showing a painting by a Muslim artist to honor the Prophet Muhammad was harmful even if Muslim students did not have to look at it, which would make the teaching of that painting in any classroom prohibited. (Note: I said some Muslim students, not all. Tellingly, some Muslim students who disagreed with the complaining students remained silent rather than risk disapproval by their peers and accusations of disloyalty.)

A student can make the perfectly reasonable (and wholly subjective) claim that they are upset, offended or angry. It is entirely different to claim harm. A skill that we can impart to students is the ability to respond effectively to an argument that offends them and to learn to be upset without considering themselves to have suffered harm.

Especially given the nations polarized politics and increasing threat of political violence, students must learn how to engage in difficult conversations over controversial issues with civility and sophistication, and the classroom is the ideal setting for this work. While we often focus on speaking and argumentation skills, we should also teach skills in listening to others and managing emotions. Listening to someone argue for a position that you passionately disagree with is an exercise in observing and controlling the powerful, negative emotions that can arise, so that we can listen with as much interpretive charity as possible and respond as skillfully as possible (or, if someone is unbearable, walk away). Censoring disturbing or offensive speech robs us of the opportunity to cultivate these skills and hone our responses. FIREs Nico Perrino puts it well: When you censor people, you dont change their minds you just dont know what they actually believe.

My greatest test in emotion management at the FIRE conference occurred during the lecture by Amy Wax, a tenured law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was accused by her dean of holding a pseudo-scientific vision of white superiority and introducing her ideas in a classroom setting. The university administration is trying to fire her; Wax is fighting back.

I strongly disagree with many of her views, which can alternate between the absurd and the offensive. I would normally not attend an Amy Wax lecture. In fact, this was not supposed to be a lecture, but a debate between Wax and her colleague Jonathan Zimmerman (I would have loved to see that). Unfortunately, Zimmerman was sick and could not attend. So, Wax gave a talk and answered questions.

As I sat there and listened, I could feel my blood pressure rise, and I found myself involuntarily shaking my head, rolling my eyes, and looking in disbelief at my colleague. Wax does not do herself any favors with her strident, combative oratory, and she often phrases things in the most provocative way possible. (For instance: Thats lefty propaganda!).

Yet, throughout the speech, because of the influence that the FIRE community has had on me, I tried to discern, through the loud voices fashioning the sharpest possible responses to Wax, the voice that says, Thank you. Her speech was an opportunity to both manage the emotions that arose as I listened, and also to articulate precisely why she an experienced and knowledgeable professor of law is so wrong. Every such encounter is an opportunity to develop and hone our thoughts.

Having taught religion for over 25 years, I am confident that students can handle being challenged, provoked and disturbed. In addition to the valuable experience of being exposed to viewpoints that call their fundamental beliefs into question, students learn the value of resilience. They do not need to be protected from unsettling or offensive views, and the attempt to do so denies them a crucial skill they will need to thrive in a diverse and often divided nation.

A university is one of the few places that create spaces for conversations on important, contentious issues (almost all of which require or at least benefit from the knowledge and expertise that students are acquiring in the classroom.) Because the university is the site of these conversations and debates, some speakers argued that the institution must not itself be a participant in the debate. Institutional neutrality means, then, that a university should not make statements on the issues of the day.

The theme of institutional neutrality was prominent throughout the conference, including in Steven Pinkers keynote address. Like others who spoke at the conference, the Harvard psychology professor advocated for adopting the principles of the University of Chicagos 1967 Kalven Report, which states that The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.

As Pinker put it, universities should be forums for debate, not participants in debate; referees not players.

The Kalven Report recognizes an important exception, which Pinker acknowledged: From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.

Once we grant this, the exceptions to institutional neutrality might begin to grow. What if proposed legislation constitutes a threat to the health of the university community? How can a campus be truly open to vigorous conversation from a wide range of viewpoints if members of that community are threatened or targeted? Can a university take a public position on homophobic legislation that would impact members of the campus community to the extent that some feel they need to leave the state? What about legislation that would negatively impact valued members of the university community who are immigrants or students protected by the DREAM Act?

Proponents of institutional neutrality sound an important cautionary note regarding statements by university administrations, but since universities are value-laden institutions (the commitment to free speech and academic freedom are themselves values that need protecting, as the Kalven Report acknowledges), and their flourishing presupposes a vibrant community where members do not feel under threat, then decisions about public pronouncements on behalf of the university will always involve judgment calls.

The issue at hand involves unpopular or controversial points of view, particular arguments for positions that others might find disturbing or offensive. This is not about any speech that the law would prohibit, like the proverbial fire in a crowded theater.

I was recently asked if I am a free speech absolutist. The short answer is no. It is unlikely that anyone at the FIRE conference would be a thoroughgoing absolutist, because all of us recognize that there are constitutional limitations on free speech, including incitement to violence, harassment, defamation, etc.

Catherine Harnois from Wake Forest University showed that a framework that is legal in orientation if its legally protected speech, then it should be protected speech on campus can present a compelling alternative to limiting speech based on what upsets or offends (an approach that makes it a matter of us against the purveyors of hate). Harnois argues that campus speech codes that limit speech and expression beyond what the Constitution allows are typically written in ways that are very vague, which leads to uncertainty about the boundaries of acceptability and inconsistent enforcement by administrators.

There are also limitations on speech that are appropriate to a particular institutional context, such as confidentiality requirements or professional standards. The statement on academic freedom issued by the American Association of University Professors already recognizes this by requiring that faculty abide by criteria involving relevance (e.g., a biology professor cannot spend the entire class ranting about a hated politician) and the fair treatment of students. Obviously, a professor cannot verbally abuse a student with epithets in a classroom.

The question of free speech on campus and its limits has rarely been more urgent or polarizing, as weve seen in recent weeks.

As the opening remarks from the congressional committees chair, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., demonstrated (What is it about the way that you hire faculty and approve curriculum thats allowing your campuses to be infected by this intellectual and moral rot?), the purpose of the congressional antisemitism hearing was not to thoughtfully discuss the challenging issues surrounding antisemitism and free speech. Rafael Walker, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, points out, it became clear that Republicans intended to use the dire issue of antisemitism on college campuses as a Trojan horse for the larger attack on higher ed that they have been perpetrating for decades now.

One reason that the presidents of Penn, MIT and Harvard faced criticism for refusing to give a straightforward answer on whether or not calling for the genocide of Jews should be protected speech is because their institutions have been willing to punish members of their communities who direct statements seen as bigoted at other groups of people. For example, as Bari Weiss points out, Harvard students were told in a mandatory Title IX training that addressed such attitudes as racism and sexism, that any words used to lower a persons self-worth are verbal abuse.

As James Kirchick, a senior fellow at FIRE, wrote in a New York Times essay, Critics are correct to note the hypocrisy of university leaders who have belatedly come to embrace a version of free speech absolutism that tolerates calls for Jewish genocide after years of punishing far less objectionable speech deemed offensive to other minority groups.

There were other reasons why the presidents got themselves into so much trouble (the president of Penn has already resigned). To some degree, they were led into a trap by Stefanik, who had a political agenda. The infamous video clips from the hearing that have been seen by millions focused only on the question about genocide, which, to my knowledge, has not been advocated by any student organizations. Prior to that, the questions were about statements that have actually been made by student organizations supporting the intifada revolution and proclaiming, From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

Neither of these statements explicitly calls for the genocide of the Jewish people. While some student groups have expressed opposition to Zionism and do not believe that Israel has a right to exist, neither of these statements necessarily means that the students support the elimination of the Jewish people. One problem here is that genocide has a range of definitions. As Eugene Volokh and Will Creeley pointed out in the Los Angeles Times recently, students must be able to advocate for actions during wartime that would result in the mass slaughter of civilians (otherwise, we would not be able to have a classroom conversation about whether dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities was justified or ethical, as the authors point out.)

It is essential not to conflate the criticism of the government of Israel, or even anti-Zionism more widely, with antisemitism. While the two often overlap (many, but certainly not all, anti-Zionists are also antisemites), they must not be equated. Conflating the two inevitably leads to the suppression of speech by preventing the criticism of the Israeli government (just as conflating the criticism of Hamas with Islamophobia would silence protected speech). One notable example of this conflation can be found in the U.S. Houses recent resolution condemning antisemitism, which wrongly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

Despite my strong commitment to free speech, which has been reinforced by my work with FIRE, I believe that explicit calls for genocide understood as involving the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such, in accordance with the definition in the UN Convention on Genocide are violations of a sound campus free speech policy, and such views should not be acceptable on college campuses and should be prohibited. In this regard, I disagree with FIREs official stance, released after the three presidents testimony, which is that administrators should eliminate these (speech) codes and defend free speech in all cases.

The only way that a university campus can function as a venue for vigorous debate about controversial and important topics is if everyone in the community is allowed to participate without fear. If segments of the population are excluded from the conversation by threats or coercion, if they are intimidated into silence, then the protections of free speech are meaningless. So, there must be certain principles or ground rules that everyone accepts as a condition of the kinds of conversations that the protections of free speech make possible.

My speech is not protected if it is used to silence, exclude, threaten, or intimidate you.

The Kalven Report, which I believe largely reflects FIREs perspective, itself recognized that the university as an institution must oppose threats to the free inquiry that is at the heart of the universitys mission. The university has an obligation to defend its interests and its values.

Surely, one of the interests of the university is creating a community in which free inquiry is possible. FIRE recognizes that some speech, such as threats or harassment, can be constitutionally prohibited, and the university can certainly ban illegal speech.

One of the key factors in determining whether speech crosses a line is whether or not it is directed at an individual or simply the expression of a view to a general audience. The kind of speech that can intimidate or harass someone into silence is normally considered, to use First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokhs terms, one-to-one as opposed to one-to-many.

In this framework, you can ban someone from harassing another individual, but you cant ban someone from harassing a group of people like a racial or religious group, because strictly speaking youre not engaged in harassment when its a group of people. To put it another way: You cant threaten to kill a person, but you can say a group of people should be killed.

I would argue that speech does not have to be directed at a particular individual to function in these intimidating and harassing ways. Some instances of one-to-many speech can certainly be threatening to students, as when one group of students advocates for the killing of another group. An open conversation cannot occur when some participants have proclaimed their desire to see others annihilated. It is hard to feel included in a conversation when other participants call for your death.

MITs Code of Conduct defines prohibited harassment as unwelcome conduct of a verbal, nonverbal or physical nature that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive and that adversely affects an individuals educational, work, or living environment. I would argue that a campus in which some students know that others are calling for their death would certainly be an example of sufficiently severe, intimidating and hostile speech that adversely affects their educational environment whether that speech is personally targeted at them or not.

If college campuses can demand that students respect the right of other students to speak, then they can demand that they recognize their right to live. Explicit calls for genocide cross the line, and universities can reasonably prohibit them.

This does not imply that universities should prohibit the advocacy of intifada or the chanting of From the river to the sea, as these do not in themselves constitute calls for genocide.

A student should be able to argue that any nation-state is illegitimate (including the United States, when seen through the perspective of the lands Indigenous people, for instance). A student should be able to condemn the Israeli government for its actions without being labeled antisemitic, just as a student should be able to condemn Hamas or Iran without being labeled Islamophobic. We must give the widest possible latitude for all views and teach students that they must learn to manage the intense emotional responses they might feel when confronted with such arguments and how to respond most effectively.

If the three presidents were to give the answer that almost everyone was waiting for Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews is as violation of campus policy they would have to ensure that only the actual advocacy of the elimination of the Jewish people (or any group of people) would be considered a violation. Calls for a greater Palestine implying the elimination of Israel (or a greater Israel, calling for the elimination of Palestine), must be protected speech on a college campus, regardless of how disturbing the speech might be to some communities.

The university presidents were right that when evaluating speech, context matters, and we must reflect on whether or not the speech is targeted, whether or not it constitutes harassment or threat, and how it is related to conduct. But private universities can also articulate a set of commitments and values that enable the kind of inquiry and conversation that are foundational to its mission.

In regard to free speech, I think that FIRE is right that we should be cautious in going beyond the law and constitutional limits. But I believe that the call for the murder of members of the community and only when it is explicitly made, not implied by someones political views is incompatible with the universitys values and mission.

FIRE conference attendees could look across the table and, in the midst of our debates, be mutually grateful for the principles that enable us to talk about issues like this without fear of being silenced or accused of causing harm. Everyone involved was keenly aware that creating the spaces to talk through these issues is vital to the health of democracy, and everyone was committed to defending the right of their debate adversaries to speak freely.

For me, that includes the Amy Waxes of the world. No matter how wrong they are.

If a safe space means not a place where you are protected from challenges to your beliefs, but rather a place that is safe to explore challenging, controversial views, then the FIRE conference, a place for defenders of ideas that some would consider dangerous, was the safest space of all.

Editors note: The author was given the Berkson Courageous Colleague Award at FIREs faculty conference for his support of Erika Lpez Prater, the Hamline University art professor who lost her position after showing images of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class.

Excerpt from:

We need more freedom of speech on campus, but that can't include advocating for genocide - Minnesota Reformer

Posted on December 25, 2023 by Larry Barnett

At the subatomic, quantum level upon which all physical matter appears to be built is freedom, probabilistic indeterminacy that manifests to us as choice or even purposefulness. Although ultimately subject to the physical laws of the universe, only a fraction of which we fully understand, as far as physical science can determine, this is freedom at its tiniest and most elemental.

Electrons, for example, spin around atomic nuclei in a cloud of varied trajectories, navigating and changing their distance from the nuclei seemingly at will. Such freedom of choice at the micro, subatomic level remains operative and observable at the scaled-up macro-level; when driving to the supermarket, for example, we freely make navigational choices all the time.

From a cellular standpoint, freedom of choice can be easily observed in plants. The apical meristem is the location in living plants where active growth takes place, at the tips of roots and shoots most prominently. It is here where the appearance of freedom of choice can be seen in the formation of white spots on otherwise green surfaces, for example. As plant cells divide in the apical meristem, the fate of becoming green or white is not entirely predetermined. While a generalized pattern of spots is genetically indicated, it is not absolute. For this reason the precise location of white spots varies from leaf to leaf on an individual plant. Turning white or green, it appears, is a matter of choice or resonance at the subatomic level. Shakespeare nailed it. To spot or not to spot? That is the question.

DNA is less of a rigid plan than a set of options; what science previously designated junk genes turns out to be a huge library of evolutionary options from which to choose. Its lifes conditions that prompt such freedom of choice, what science now calls epigenetics. While the universe of genetic options the library so to speak may be limited, experiences, events, conditions, and reactions are virtually infinite; such are the epigenetic factors that act upon gene expression. In this way, the indeterminate nature of becoming embraces freedom.

Indeterminacy is not limited to the living; even inanimate matter is subject to variance at the subatomic, quantum level. Crystals, for example, display a process of orderly self-organization thats almost life-like, a process that requires some sort of subatomic feedback mechanism or resonance that insures or varies the integrity of crystal formation, not altogether unlike what happens in a plants apical meristem.

The existence of such underlying feedback mechanisms in both living and non-living matter and its worth noting here that living things are entirely comprised of non-living matter points to a universe that is itself fundamentally free. In this sense, the universe is always monitoring itself and exercising its freedom. The self-organizing, free evolution of the cosmos has engendered our own and that of all animal life.

Classifying animals as wild is somewhat of a misnomer; non-domesticated animals are not wild, they are free, and while all living things are slaves to nature, unlike other animals, people struggle with freedom freedom from others, freedom from the constraints of human systems, and even freedom from our own imagination and feelings.

Although having dispensed with fixed time and space, Einstein refused to accept the indeterminate freedom of quantum mechanics. God, he surmised, does not play dice with the universe. Yet, into this inconceivably vast, freely evolving universe you were born. Now imagine the probabilities of that!

Excerpt from:

Freedom, first and last Sonoma Sun | Sonoma, CA - Sonoma Valley Sun

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

For the first time in nearly two decades, I get to spend the holidays with my family. What a stark difference from where I was just a few weeks ago, still sitting in prison for a crime I did not commit.

The simple pleasures sharing a meal with my family, hearing the laughter of my loved ones gathered for the holidays are moments that once seemed lost to me forever. This year, I am not just celebrating the holiday season; I am celebrating my newfound freedom and the chance to rebuild the life that was taken from me.

On Dec. 11, I walked out of prison a free man. Following an agreement between the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and my legal team from the Great North Innocence Project (GNIP), a judge ruled that the eyewitness evidence used to convict me was unreliable and never should have been introduced at my trial; and that, without that unconstitutional eyewitness evidence, there never would have been enough evidence to convict me. There was no physical evidence tying me to the crime, and I didn't match the description provided by the main eyewitness.

Two weeks ago, for the first time since I was 16, I felt the crisp air of freedom on my face. As I embark on my new chapter, I want to be an advocate for those whose stories go untold and for change.

Sadly, my story of injustice is not unique. Countless others continue to suffer the consequences of a flawed justice system. Minnesota makes it incredibly difficult for individuals to bring postconviction claims when their case is more than two years old. What this means is that there are wrongfully convicted individuals sitting in Minnesota prisons with new evidence of their innocence, but they aren't granted their day in court because of the strict statute of limitations. This was the exact situation I was in, too.

Ironically, despite all the injustices in my case, I am one of the "lucky" ones. I was convicted in 2005 the statute of limitations ran out for me many years ago. But the Hennepin County Attorney's Office agreed it would be unfair to keep me out of court on a technicality. It agreed to waive the two-year statute of limitations, allowing GNIP to present evidence that led to my exoneration. Had it not been for that waiver, I'd still be sitting behind bars.

People in my situation shouldn't have to depend on prosecutors doing the right thing just to get their day in court. We should want to make sure that, if we are keeping people locked up in prison, it's because they are actually guilty. If there is new evidence calling that guilt into question, let that evidence see the light of day, even if it happens to come to light more than two years later.

As things stand, it is just much too hard to bring these claims in Minnesota after two years. Despite our progressive reputation, Minnesota makes it harder than any other Midwest state to bring such claims. That's why I am working with my lawyers at GNIP to fight for legislation that would amend Minnesota's postconviction statute and provide a lifeline for innocent people still sitting in prison.

The proposal would create a more reasonable and just standard for claims based on newly discovered evidence. It would bring Minnesota law into the mainstream, making sure people with real claims can get their day in court and have a chance at proving their claims and regaining their freedom.

To those who supported me through my journey to exoneration especially my family thank you. Your belief in my innocence fueled my fight. And I am so grateful to my legal team from GNIP for its tireless effort, leading to my freedom. But my heart aches for those still waiting for their day in court. Every missed holiday time that should be spent with loved ones underscores the urgency for change.

I write this as a free man, home with my family for the holidays, but urging the Minnesota Legislature to pass this crucial legislation next session to help innocent people in our state.

Marvin Haynes lives in New Brighton.

View original post here:

Home for the holidays, from wrongful imprisonment - Star Tribune

They may seem unrelated, but conversations about trans rights and personal style are inherently connected.

As the phrase personal style implies, our sartorial choices reflect who we are. This is an incredibly empowering sentiment for the nations 1.6 million trans and/or nonbinary people, many of whom alter how they dress to more accurately represent their gender identity. Across the board, todays top tastemakers know to play around with garments regardless of how theyre labeled or divided and Gen Z, Americas queerest cohort, is leading the charge.

The fashion industry at large has noticed. In the last few years, weve seen an emphasis on clothing lines and styled clothing that eschew traditional gender norms. Openly trans models like Hunter Schafer, Hari Nef, and Aaron Rose Philip are posing for esteemed fashion houses. Alex Consani was a major face at NYFW. Representation spans the entertainment industry, too: In the past year alone, musicians Sam Smith and Kim Petras shattered a lavender ceiling with their historic Grammy win, and celebrities like Janelle Mone and Alex Newell stunned on the Met Gala red carpet (the latter, for the first time). And these are just trans and/or nonbinary celebrities who are out publicly in all likelihood, even more members of this community are making strides in their own respective safe spaces or are yet to come out.

Crucially, increased visibility for trans people doesnt guarantee safety under the law. Only 23 states and Washington, DC, have codified explicit nondiscrimination protections on the basis of gender identity. But fair and accurate representation can counteract the transphobic lies and dehumanization pushed by anti-LGBTQ+ politicians, says Alex Schmider, the director of transgender representation at GLAAD, the nations leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group. In the current political climate, these counter-narratives are more vital than ever.

This year saw a staggering surge in anti-trans legislation nationwide the worst in recent history, says Andrew A. Ortiz, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center (TLC), Americas largest trans-led organization. Binaries have grown more rigid in other areas, too. At most fashion weeks, menswear and womenswear categories still dominate. And even when big-name fashion brands tap trans models for their runway shows, they arent necessarily taking steps behind the scenes to empower trans people. To this day, the most powerful creative directors in the fashion world are almost all white, cisgender, and/or male. Its also a poignant reflection of what's happening politically: As transgender Americans achieve greater visibility and social acceptance in some spheres, a reactionary anti-trans constituent is doubling down on their efforts to exclude them from public life.

At the time of this writing, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is tracking over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in the 2023 legislative session, up from 278 in 2022. More than 400 of these bills target trans people, as per the Equality Federation; many specifically take aim at the nations 300,000 trans youth. In some states, hostile laws have jeopardized their access to gender-affirming healthcare services deemed safe and medically necessary by virtually every major medical association in the US. Other attacks target trans peoples ability to access gender-affirming healthcare in prison, obtain accurate identification documents, or play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

Its no coincidence that were seeing simultaneous attacks on other marginalized groups. The politicians targeting trans people are typically the same forces who seek to ban books about race and restrict access to reproductive healthcare. These fights are inextricably linked, adds Ortiz, and theyre tied together in a right-wing agenda to control people. The impact of this on young people cannot be overstated. These policies and anti-trans attitudes are not only incredibly hurtful but strip an individual's freedom to safely self-express.

Zooming in on the fashion industry alone, there is plenty to be hopeful about. Especially given that some of the industrys most buzz-worthy innovators are trans and/or nonbinary from Gogo Graham to Pierre Davis of No Sesso or vocal advocates and allies like Becca McCharen-Tran of Chromat, LaQuan Smith, Haoran Li of Private Policy, and Aaron Potts.

Ahead of what will likely be another pivotal year in fashion, lets review some stats from 2023 both specific to the style sphere and beyond.

A note on vocabulary: In this piece, were using the terms trans and nonbinary. In accordance with current usage and trusted sources (with particular thanks to the Human Rights Campaign), heres what we mean:

Transgender, or trans, is a term used by people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them at birth.

Nonbinary is used by those who view their gender identity as more than male or female; the term acknowledges gender as a true spectrum, not one of only two male/female binaries. Nonbinary can also cover identities such as agender, bigender, genderqueer, gender fluid and more.

A nonbinary individual may identify as trans, but not necessarily.

Gender identity refers to ones innermost concept of self how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. Ones gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.

Gender expression refers to the external appearance of ones gender identity, usually expressed through behavior, clothing, body characteristics or voice, and which may or may not conform to socially defined behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being masculine or feminine.

A persons gender identity and expression are not the same as their sexuality.

Throughout, the data we cite the data available will reference publicly out trans and/or nonbinary individuals, and very often include the greater LGBTQ+-identifying community. We acknowledge that there are many other identities and labels used by people in the transgender and/or nonbinary community to describe the personal experience of gender. This research is not meant to be conclusive and any tallies of trans representation are likely non-exhaustive.

Fashion industry September issues with trans celebrities on the cover: 1

In 2023, barely any mainstream fashion magazines in the US featured trans people on their September issue covers. Dylan Mulvaney did cover The Cut, profiled by Brock Colyar. Harris Reed, a queer designer whose demi-couture creations celebrate gender fluidity, did get a nod in Marie Claires 2023 Fashion Changemakers, its September cover story. And though its not mainstream, per se, one of Highsnobietys three September issue cover stars was nonbinary supermodel Grace Valentine who spoke openly about the power of clothing to affirm ones identity. In their words: With fashion, there are so many opportunities for expression and exploration that act as gateways for others to follow suit.

Trans and/or nonbinary celebrities who walked the Met Gala red carpet: 4

The Metropolitan Museum of Arts annual gala is one of the biggest nights in fashion. Of the dozens of A-listers who walked the red carpet this year, only a handful are openly trans and/or nonbinary. We counted at least four: Janelle Mone, Bella Ramsey, Kim Petras, and Alex Newell.

Trans models who donned Victorias Secret angel wings: 4

Victorias Secrets fraught legacy of exclusion is well known. In recent years, however, the lingerie stalwart has taken steps to rectify this. In 2023, at least four openly trans models sported the brands iconic angel wings, including Alex Consani, Valentina Sampaio, Emira DSpain, and up-and-comer Colin Jones.

Unisex/nonbinary fashion shows on the official NYFW schedule: 20

The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), the group that organizes New York Fashion Week, debuted its gender-inclusive unisex/nonbinary event category back in 2018. In September 2023, at least 20 CFDA-sanctioned NYFW showcases received this designation.

Trans and/or nonbinary models who walked in NYFW: 14

At least 14 trans and/or nonbinary models walked the runways at official NYFW events in September. The Blonds Spring/Summer 2024 showcase was a standout moment for trans representation, with queer design duo David Blond and Phillipe Blond tapping Dylan Mulvaney, Dominique Jackson, and Gigi Gorgeous to model their sequined wares.

Brands led by trans and/or nonbinary designers on the official NYFW schedule: 1

From Michael Kors to Luar Raul Lopez and Gypsy Sports Rio Uribe, queer designers were well represented in the CFDAs official NYFW calendar for September. However, openly trans and/or nonbinary designers were few and far between. It was only in 2019 that NYFW featured its first show by an openly trans designer, No Sessos Davis.

Anti-trans bills in the US: 500+ bills introduced in 49 states

These laws might be theoretical and abstract for some folks, but this is real life for many, many people, says Ortiz, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center (TLC). We cant let that be forgotten in these discussions. Its important to remember that these laws actively impact young people who are just trying to express who they are.

Anti-LGBTQ+ laws passed: 84

Of the 501 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2023, 84 have become law so far. These include 34 attacks on inclusive education and access to school sports for trans youth, 26 on gender-affirming healthcare, and four on accurate IDs. Conservative lawmakers in Tennessee and North Dakota have passed the highest number of hateful laws this year (10 each).

Anti-LGBTQ+ laws from 2023 being challenged by the ACLU in court: 14

At the time of writing, ACLU attorneys are challenging 14 anti-LGBTQ+ laws that were passed in 2023, the bulk of which are explicitly anti-trans. Some efforts have already seen wins: In the case of K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, a federal judge agreed to block officials from enforcing Indianas newly minted ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors.

Anti-drag bills introduced: 32

Across the country, states from Arizona to Tennessee have introduced bills to prohibit adult cabaret performances that might be in range of children. Behind the bills is discomfort to do with a perceived challenge to traditional gender expression that drag shows purportedly pose.

Anti-LGBTQ+ bills defeated: 216

Although conservative lawmakers introduced transphobic bills in record numbers, nearly half of this legislation (about 44 percent) was shut down before it could become law.

Percentage of out LGBTQ+ elected officials who are trans and/or nonbinary: 8 percent

Between June 2022 and May 2023, a significant number of trans and/or nonbinary politicians won their bids for state and local offices. According to the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, they now account for 8.1 percent of the nations 1,185 LGBTQ+ elected officials, an increase of 24 percent from 20212022.

Trans-inclusive films nominated at the Academy Awards: 2

At this years Oscars, two films that featured trans characters scored noms in major categories: Night Ride, a Norwegian short about a woman who steals a tram, and Women Talking, a feminist drama based on Miriam Toews novel of the same name. The latter took home the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Trans and/or nonbinary artists nominated at the Grammy Awards: 5

2024s crop of Grammy nominees, announced in November, include nonbinary artists Justin Tranter, Janelle Mone, and J. Harrison Ghee. And at the 2023 awards, Unholy singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras werent just nominated for a Grammy. The pair scored Best Pop Duo / Group Performance, making them the first openly nonbinary and/or trans artists, respectively, to win in their category.

Trans and/or nonbinary characters featured on primetime television: 32

According to GLAADs research, the 20222023 television season featured just 32 transgender characters across all platforms. They account for fewer than 6 percent of the 596 total LGBTQ+ characters on TV a slim proportion, and a year-over-over decrease of nearly 25 percent. GLAAD has yet to release its findings about the 20232024 season.

Trans and/or nonbinary actors who withdrew from Emmys consideration: 1

Yellowjackets breakout star Liv Hewson routinely steals scenes in Showtimes critically acclaimed drama. But despite being eligible for this years Primetime Emmy Awards, the nonbinary actor publicly withdrew themself from consideration because the Television Academy only has gendered acting categories. I cant submit myself for this because theres no space for me, they told Variety of the statement-making move, which they hope gets Hollywood execs talking.

View post:

The Freedom to Dress Cannot Be Overstated - Highsnobiety