Author Archives: Sheila

NO NO NO

The Trump Administration may be the pre-eminent example of lunacy in government, but the current super-majority in Indiana’s legislature–aided and abetted by our MAGA Governor and his merry band of White Christian Nationalists–are no less impervious to logic, evidence and sound policy. 

A report from Indiana Public Media focuses on one example. It begins:

A measure meant to better align education in Indiana to the state’s workforce needs is headed to the governor’s desk. It received wide support from Senate lawmakers despite lingering concerns about its effect on colleges, universities and employers.

SB 448 requires the Commission for Higher Education to approve all degrees and programs offered by public colleges and universities every 10 years. It also says those schools must assess and consider their staffing needs when reviewing tenured professors.

Sen. Greg Taylor (D-Indianapolis) said he is concerned programs could be cut if they aren’t considered valuable to the state’s employment needs. Additionally, he expressed concern that requiring faculty tenure reviews to take specific staffing needs for approved degrees or programs into account could be detrimental to other areas of study.

“It can get really dangerous for us to start providing this type of, I don’t know, nose under the tent ideology,” he said.

Taylor has identified the two major flaws in this state over-reach. I’ve repeatedly posted about the first– lawmakers’ refusal to understand what education is, and why it is not job training. Our public schools and universities have two vitally important tasks:  giving the nation’s children and youth the intellectual tools and skills they will need, not just to negotiate the economic world they will inhabit, but the tools to lead richer, more fulfilled and considered lives; and equipping them with what I have termed “civic literacy”–enabling them to discharge the responsibilities of citizenship.

Education includes things like art, music, literature and philosophy. Presumably, those studies are unnecessary “frills” when the job of the schools is simply to produce worker bees. 

But SB 448 not only confuses education with job training, it mimics Trump’s efforts to dictate what can and cannot be taught in the nation’s universities, to control and micro-manage institutions of higher education and to “purge” those institutions of ideas with which our overlords disagree.

The American Association of Colleges and Universities has issued a response to these efforts. It began:

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.

The statement notes that the nation’s colleges and universities are diverse. There are “research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses.”  Different schools are designed for different students. In order for these institutions to function properly, they must have the

freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.

I encourage you to click through and read the entire statement, which was signed by dozens of university presidents. I doubt it will move the culture warriors in Washington or the Indiana Statehouse, who shrink from “open inquiry” and want to turn our educational institutions into factories spitting out those obedient worker bees. These are limited individuals who view genuine intellectual engagement and inquiry with fear and disdain. 

During this session, Indiana’s terrible legislature has doubled down on its war on education. It has stolen even more critical funding from our public schools in order to increase a voucher program that all evidence shows does not improve educational outcomes, and is in reality a First Amendment “work-around” allowing public money to flow to religious schools. In a prior session, it passed a highly intrusive bill misleadingly described as an effort to protect “intellectual diversity” on state campuses–in reality, an effort to purge those campuses of perspectives of which our radical legislators disapprove.

Ironically, those Blue states governed by legislators who understand the difference between job training and education–and who support, rather than undermine, their universities’ missions–also have more robust economies.

Too bad Indiana’s “leaders” can’t connect those dots….

Comments

Cultural Revolution?

In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman compared the Trump administration’s anti-DEI (i.e., pro-racism & misogyny) efforts to China’s cultural revolution under Mao.

Once you’ve seen the parallel between what MAGA is trying to do and China’s Cultural Revolution, the similarities are everywhere. Maoists sent schoolteachers to do farm labor; Trumpists are talking about putting civil servants to work in factories.

The Cultural Revolution was, of course, a huge disaster for China. It inflicted vast suffering on its targets and also devastated the economy. But the Maoists didn’t care. Revenge was their priority, never mind the effects on GDP.

As we’ve seen, China’s efforts failed–albeit not without years of unnecessary suffering. As I’ve previously opined, changing a nation’s culture rarely if ever works. But our would-be king–unhampered by anything suggesting intellect or competent appointees within his “administration,” is certainly trying to fulfill the most ardent wish of his MAGA base–taking American society back to the 1950s (or perhaps before), when women were pushing out babies and doing the dishes in the kitchen, and Black Americans were subject to segregation and confined to subservient positions.

That effort requires eliminating evidence of the worth and competence of women and Blacks. Accordingly, I did a search for federal websites that have been scrubbed of references to the contributions of women and black people.

Here’s what I found.

The Department of Defense undertook a significant purge of DEI-related content, resulting in the removal of profiles and articles about Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers, a Black Medal of Honor recipient; the Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team; the Navajo Code Talkers (including profiles of Indigenous veterans; women veterans such as Lisa Jaster, the first female Army Reserve graduate of Ranger School); historical figures like Jackie Robinson, who served in the Army during World War II; the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Airforce Service Pilots; and notable gravesites of Hispanic and Black service members at Arlington National Cemetery.

Some content has been restored following public outcry, but many of those pages remain inaccessible .​

NASA removed profiles of women and people of color from its website. The profile of Rose Ferreira, a Dominican-American intern, was taken down and later reinstated after public backlash. However, the restoration led to harassment directed at Ferreira, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals whose stories were previously celebrated .​

The National Park Service revised its content to align with the administration’s directives. Those erasures included the removal of mentions of transgender individuals from articles about the suffragist movement; changing terminology from “LGBT” to “LGB” and omitting the word “queer;” altering language in articles about the Underground Railroad, including removing a quote and image of Harriet Tubman and the term “slavery.”

The Small Business Administration removed a photograph from its website depicting a diverse group of individuals, including women and people of color, in front of a whiteboard.

Other federal agencies that have complied include the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has removed content related to LGBTQ+ veterans; the Federal Trade Commission, which has deleted over 300 posts, including those reporting on antitrust actions against tech giants; and the State Department, which altered the language in international travel advisories, replacing “LGBTQ+” with “LGB” and omitting references to safety concerns for transgender Americans abroad.

I have no idea how many Americans visit these sites; certainly, the information that has been deleted is widely available elsewhere. (In the age of the Internet, erasure of information previously available is a pipe dream…) That said, these alterations provide additional evidence (as if we needed it) of the central preoccupation of the White Christian Nationalists and other assorted bigots who form the majority of MAGA adherents.

It remains to be seen whether those who supported Trump because he promised to reward their racism–to return them to social dominance– will be steadfast in that support despite the chaos and damage being done to the economy, public health, science, education and the rule of law, among other elements of accelerating collateral damage.

As Krugman admonished readers, looking for rational strategy in Trump’s hysterical assault on DEI and “woke-ism” (aka equality and humanity) is a fool’s errand. “Don’t try to sanewash what’s happening. It’s evil, but it isn’t calculated evil. That is, it’s not a considered political strategy, with a clear end goal. It’s a visceral response from people who, as Thomas Edsall puts it, are addicted to revenge.”

Mao couldn’t change his culture. I don’t think Trump will change America’s, either. But we’ll suffer while he tries.

Comments

A Battle Plan

Twice in the month of April, thousands of people turned out to protest the Trump coup. Here in Red Indiana, thousands gathered on April 5th and again on the 19th, despite cold, rainy weather. They gathered with clever (and not-so-clever) signs, and with determination (some in wheelchairs or with walkers). They came with small children and elderly parents. And they came in surprisingly large numbers.

There are plenty of nay-sayers who dismiss protests of this sort as wasted effort. They’re wrong, for a number of reasons. At the very least, those of us who have participated in these events come away with heightened resolve, recognizing that our concerns and anger are widely shared, that we stand in solidarity with others who are determined to protect what I have called The American Idea.

There are many avenues that citizens can use to resist and hopefully defeat a national turn to autocracy. In a recent Bulwark article, J.V. Last published a “battle plan for dissidents.” That plan was “half mass mobilization and half asymmetric warfare,” in recognition that– during the coming year– such tactics “will matter more than traditional political messaging as it has been practiced here in living memory.”

Last lists eight recommended tactics:

  1. Demonstrate popular power in the provinces through large-scale rallies.
  2. Use these events to organize the resistance into a mass movement that can be called into action.
  3. Direct the mass movement into targeted political strikes: Getting blowout wins in special elections; boycotts of Tesla; etc.
  4. Politicize everything: Attack the authoritarians for every bad thing that happens, anywhere in the world. Flood the zone.
  5. Elevate the corruption/graft in a way that pits the billionaire insiders against the “forgotten man.”
  6. When the moment is right, bring this movement to the Capital for a show of strength.
  7. Use this demonstration as a slingshot to take back legislative power in the 2026 elections.
  8. More importantly, use it to send a message to the institutional actors that people will have their back if they show courage..

While I agree with all eight, it is important to recognize that numbers 1, 2, and 8 are dependent upon the sorts of peaceful mass demonstrations we’re now experiencing. Large turnouts by everyday Americans of the sort we are seeing are a demonstration of power–people who are willing to get off their couches, create signs, gather and march with others are people who will cast ballots in upcoming elections.

The mechanisms used to inform citizens of these upcoming demonstrations will also serve as the initial organizing machinery for further actions–boycotts or strikes, for example. (I will note that those mechanisms need to be greatly expanded; significant numbers of people, many of whom would have been likely to participate, remained totally unaware of April’s protests. As the grass-roots groups sponsoring these events build out their informational webs, that will undoubtedly change.)

But Number 8 is by far the most important of the three identified purposes of these mass protests.

We would not be in the position we’re in if the GOP invertebrates We the People have elected to Congress were doing their jobs. Granted, some of these officials are as bigoted and ignorant as the current administration. Some are “out and proud” White Christian Nationalists rejecting modernity and enthusiastically applauding the destruction of the federal government. (Here in Indiana, that cohort includes Senator Jim Banks.) But a significant number of those elected officials have placed their ability to retain their positions–and escape the ire of the would-be King–over their obligations to the Constitution and fidelity to their oaths of office.

It is that latter group of “institutional actors” that can be moved by mass public demonstrations–by evidence that large numbers of their constituents will “have their backs” if they oppose the ongoing coup, but will vote against them if they continue to cower. (Are you listening, Senator Young?)

There is one other value to these gatherings that the essay failed to note, probably because it is hard to document, and that’s the informational value inherent in such events. In a world where people get their information from wildly disparate sources, significant numbers of Americans remain unaware of the actions of this administration and the very dangerous implications of those actions. When fellow citizens protest in great numbers, some of the uninformed will encounter information they didn’t previously have.

For that matter, protestors angered by specific issues are frequently unaware of the full range of Trump’s bad actions, given their rapidity and number. The speeches and signs at mass events expand participants’ understanding of the threats we face.

Education occurs in many venues. Protests are one of them.

Comments

Defending The Rule Of Law

As the Trump administration careens drunkenly from outrage to outrage, laying waste to the American Idea, there is one “through line” to the Dear Leader’s petulant and bizarre Executive Orders and (ungrammatical) pronouncements: virtually all of them violate the laws of the land. (My husband will read of some Trumpian action and ask me, “Can he do that?” and my response is usually, “It’s against the law, if that matters.”)

The Constitutional crisis we are currently experiencing is Trump’s disregard–not just for the laws he is ignoring–but for Court orders requiring him to obey them.

I don’t know how this crisis will turn out. I have hopes that the increasing numbers of protests will encourage at least some Republican Senators and Representatives to re-grow their spines (although here in Indiana,  Senator Jim Banks–a dim, smug self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist–is beyond hope). In the meantime, there are emerging signs that the legal community is prepared to defend the rule of law against our Mad King and his merry band of lunatics.

I was particularly pleased to read a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, because it confirmed a point I’ve repeatedly made on this site: whatever descriptors you want to apply to Trumpism and MAGA, “conservative” isn’t one of them.

As Josh Marshall wrote at Talking Points Memo 

If you had told me in 2005 that 20 years hence federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III would be writing a paean to our lost liberties and freedoms under a Republican president, I may have politely suggested you seek some help.

The entire order is worth reading. Wilkinson clings to the hope that the judiciary’s “brethren in the Executive Branch” will recognize that the rule of law is “vital to the American ethos.”

Wilkinson’s defense of the rule of law is being joined by individual lawyers. R. William Jonas, Jr., a partner in a law firm in Mishawaka, Indiana, recently shared the following letter he’d written to the Indiana Bar Association.

I write today as a member and Past President of the Indiana State Bar Association, and as an officer of the court who swore on Oct. 9, 1981, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. To fulfill my oath, I write today in the wake of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attached here.

The U.S. government “snatched” Kilmar Abrego Garcia from his home state of Maryland, and, in utter disregard of his constitutional right to due process and a specific court order, and transported him to an infamous prison in El Salvador where it is now claimed that he is beyond the power of our courts. We know from reading the Fifth Amendment that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And “no person” means exactly that – it includes everyone from Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples to Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy or Gertrude Baniszewski.

 It is the duty of the Indiana State Bar Association, to speak in support of the opinion of the court and the right of due process which is at the very heart of the rule of law. Some might say that we should be silent because we shouldn’t be taking political positions or because it might cause people to terminate their memberships. To these folks, I say that we all have sworn to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. This association is rightly proud of its efforts to promote leadership through the Leadership Development Academy and civic education through the Indiana Bar Foundation’s civic education program “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.” If we remain silent, what message do we send about leadership? About civic duty? If not us, who? If not now, when?

              Judge Wilkinson wrote

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but itmay present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believeour good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

Now is the opportunity for the ISBA to speak up in support of the right to due process and the rule of law, and to urge the local bars of Indianapolis, Evansville, Allen County, Lake County and St. Joseph County to take similar action. It is an opportunity to urge the faculties of Indiana’s law schools to join the chorus – as Judge Wilkinson says “while there is still time.”

Now is the time for all of us to speak up–and resist.

Comments

The Root Of The Problem

I know, I know…I’ve repeatedly opined that the “root of the problem” is racism (defined as fear and loathing of all “Others”–including not just anti-Black and anti-Jewish animus, but the White Christian Nationalist effort to put women back in the kitchen and send immigrants with less than alabaster skin tones back to the “shithole” countries from which they came.) And I stand by that allegation.

That said, the current eruption of those long-simmering hatreds has been enormously facilitated by the information environment we inhabit.

In one of his daily newsletters, Robert Hubbell shared an observation that struck me as very true: he noted that, for MAGA Republicans, “truth is a pesky annoyance to be circumvented.” But government and the rule of law are dependent upon a polity that shares a “common view of facts rooted in reality.”

The Internet has been an incredible boon to humanity; it has allowed people to access virtually all of the information produced by mankind. It has made our lives more convenient–whatever one thinks of Jeff Bezos, old folks who can’t get out to shop, people who for one reason or another cannot drive, can order needed goods with a click and have those goods delivered to their doors, an enormous benefit. (Note: that online ordering need not be confined to Amazon.) 

The Internet has also enhanced free speech in a number of ways. For one thing, it frustrates efforts at censorship–as the scolds who try to remove books from school libraries have found. (Tell a teenager “you can’t read this book” and more often than not, you’ve piqued her interest in that book, which she can access easily enough via the Internet.) 

I could go on enumerating the positives of our new human connectivity. But like almost every aspect of human progress, there are downsides, and one of the most concerning is the immense growth of what we politely call “disinformation,” and what is more accurately called lying. Conspiracy theories. Propaganda. 

Let’s be honest–the Internet has made it possible to live in a chosen bubble, to inhabit an information environment that has been carefully curated to reinforce what a particular individual wishes to believe. That ability is steadily eroding the importance of empirical fact.

Over the long haul, it is likely that choosing to live in a world where “facts” are irrelevant is risky. Individuals who prefer to believe RFK, Jr’s fact-free animus toward vaccination die more frequently than those who accept medical science. Those who reject the humanity of people who are “different” live more fearful and far less interesting lives than the people who embrace diversity and learn from it.

If the negative outcomes were limited to the people making fact-free choices, the rest of us could shrug and leave them to their own (constricted) worldviews. After all, there have always been people who live in fantasies of their own construction, always been conspiracy theorists and science deniers. As a doctor/cousin of mine likes to say, there’s always been a market for snake oil.

But the Internet has vastly expanded the availability and reach of that snake oil. It has enormously facilitated the ability to inhabit a bubble that confirms one’s desired reality. In an increasingly complicated world, the temptation to retreat from that complexity also becomes greater. (Nor is that temptation limited to low-information citizens.)

For all my adult life, I have been a firm and vocal supporter of free speech–not because all speech is valuable, but because allowing government (or any authority) to decide what speech is allowable would be far–far–more dangerous than stupid, false, obscene or incendiary speech itself. The advent of the Internet and thousands of sites promoting propaganda and worse hasn’t changed my analysis. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that “alternate realities” available online do vastly greater damage than similar fantasies peddled via pamphlets or even by radio “personalities.”

Ultimately, the only counter-measure I can envision is better education. Better civic education, better instruction in logic, more instruction in how to determine the credibility of Internet reports. But that’s “ultimately.” I don’t know what we do today to counter the vast amounts of (excuse my language) horse-shit coming from MAGA and Trump and the Christian Nationalists. 

Let’s face it: the people who voted for Donald Trump do not occupy a fact-based reality. And thanks in large part to a vast Right-wing information ecosystem, there were enough of them to plunge America into the dark age we are experiencing.

We can only hope that when reality bites, it will be hard enough to waken enough of them…

Comments