Tag Archives: Indiana

Indiana’s Brain Drain

Indiana has long had a “brain drain.” College educated young people–even those who graduate from Hoosier colleges and universities–consistently leave the state. The reasons aren’t mysterious, and most aren’t economic, although we do have lower starting salaries and fewer large headquarters than other (mostly Bluer) states.

Indiana’s legislators recognize the existence of the problem, but overlook–or choose to ignore–the reasons for it. Our elected officials fail to recognize the importance of the quality of life issues that educated young folks (and plenty of us older ones) value: walkable neighborhoods, good public transit, a lively arts scene, and the cultural diversity that supports a wide variety of restaurants, cafes and nightlife– attributes of a vibrant urbanism that Indiana’s legislature not only doesn’t appreciate, but routinely tries to diminish.

Then, of course, there is social policy. Indiana’s abortion ban isn’t just a deal-breaker for many young women and their partners (ask some of our larger employers, who will confirm the effect of that ban on their efforts to hire). It is also negatively affecting the state’s ability to retain physicians, researchers, and even some of the employers who are experiencing those problems with recruitment.

Our Red state’s war on LGBTQ+ rights is another negative. Educated young people are repulsed by the bigotry that has prompted Indiana’s laws attacking the rights of trans children and their parents.  It isn’t only gay young people who find these and other anti-gay measures distasteful. These efforts to stigmatize gay folks join the legislature’s (and Governor’s) interference in higher education, the Trumpian attacks on DEI, and  politicization of university curricula. All of this is (quite accurately) seen as an unwelcoming environment for intellectual life.

And then there’s the recent prominence of the Hoosier state’s Christian nationalists.

Lest you dismiss my assertion that the rise of our “Christian warriors” has accelerated the departure of educated young people from the Hoosier state, allow me to quote a real economist. Michael Hicks is the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics and the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. In a recent column for the Indiana Citizen, Hicks expressly linked the rise of Indiana’s Christian nationalism to the outflow of educated young people. As he wrote,

Indiana is in the midst of what is possibly the most economically damaging period of outmigration in state history. This is because net migration from Indiana is concentrated among the best educated young people. A 2017 study by U.S. Senate Republicans reported Indiana’s ‘brain drain’ was among the worst  seven states nationwide – worse than West Virginia. Since then, the environment has worsened substantially. College enrollment in Indiana is in rapid, historically unequalled decline with more Hoosiers heading to out-of-state colleges than ever before.

The last thing a healthy and prosperous Indiana needs is anything that would repel young people wishing to make a life in our state. A Christian nationalist agenda that is hostile to Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans is a recipe for a more sluggish and moribund economy.

And just to be clear, a more sluggish economy is a feature, not a bug of the Christian nationalist movement. They seek an ideologically pure, small-sect Christian state, where students are consigned religious schools from pre-Kindergarten through college.  They want a poorer, less educated population, that is easier to control. They want a public workforce that sits quietly in the pews of one or two different denominations.

This is economically damaging to Indiana, deeply anti-Christian and un-American. It must be rejected by Hoosiers.

Our legislative overlords like to proclaim that low tax rates make Indiana “business friendly.” They don’t seem able to connect the dots between adequate investments in the state’s quality of life and a robust business environment. And they are obviously impervious to the negative economic consequences of support for social policies reminiscent of the 1800s.

And speaking of “connecting the dots”–the composition of Indiana’s legislature isn’t the result of a backward citizenry. It doesn’t reflect widespread public sentiment. A significant minority of our state’s citizens actually live in the twenty-first century, and understand and disapprove of the implications of our government’s backward approach. Those citizens just aren’t represented in the state legislature, thanks to Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering.

It’s frustrating to be a Hoosier…

Comments

The Legislature That Won’t Stay In Its Lane

Indiana’s legislature is preparing for its 2026 session. Despite the Indiana Senate’s recent, surprising show of integrity in refusing to bow to Trump’s gerrymandering order, my expectations remain low. 

For the past several years, Rightwing Republicans (a large number of whom are White Christian nationalists) have enjoyed a super-majority in Indiana’s General Assembly. They haven’t simply ignored the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State, they”ve also demonstrated their total disdain for federalism–the constitutional division of authority that accords different powers to those managing local, state and federal jurisdictions.

Indiana’s legislators seem unable to grasp the fact that they are state legislators, not mayors and/or city counselors.

The Indianapolis Star recently shared research by the Indiana Coalition for Human Services, research that focused only on policies regarding the “social determinants of health.” The report included analysis of things like economic stability, health care and public safety, and the researchers found that roughly three dozen so-called “preemption” laws have been passed since 2010. Virtually all of those measures are examples of our radically Rightwing legislature stepping in to overrule policies our legislative overlords consider progressive or–horror of horrors–“woke.”

As Gary Snyder recently wrote on his “Snyde Report,” 

Indiana lawmakers keep insisting they believe in “local control,” right up until a city tries to do literally anything remotely progressive. A new report finds the Statehouse has quietly stacked more than 50 laws designed to block cities like Indianapolis from raising wages, protecting renters, regulating guns, or extending basic protections to LGBTQ Hoosiers — all in the name of making sure nobody accidentally improves quality of life without legislative permission. Since 2010, roughly three dozen of these preemption laws have been passed, part of a national trend where Republican supermajorities treat local governments less like partners and more like misbehaving children who need their policy toys confiscated.

The official excuse is “business-friendly uniformity,” but the results look a lot like wage stagnation, housing shortages, and two in five Indiana households unable to afford the basics where they live. Cities can’t raise the minimum wage, require affordable housing, or even ban puppy mills without the Statehouse swooping in to say no — yet lawmakers remain baffled by Indiana’s poor rankings on gun deaths, pollution, voter turnout, and overall quality of life. With a fresh wave of bills queued up to crack down on immigration, ban ranked-choice voting, police homelessness, and even let legislators impeach locally elected prosecutors, the message is clear: Hoosiers can have local government — just not local solutions.

My only quibble with that summary would be with its last sentence. Thanks to a legislature that refuses to stay in its own lane, Hoosiers don’t even have genuine local government–we just elect local “functionaries” who must obey the dictates of their legislative masters. As the Coalition for Human Services found, Indiana’s state lawmakers have repeatedly used the doctrine of preemption to target policies that could help lower-income Hoosiers and others in vulnerable groups, but sometimes, the reasons for preempting local government decisions don’t seem ideological–why, for example, did the legislature overrule at least 20 local ordinances meant to combat puppy mills? Is saving puppies “woke”? (My best guess: lobbyists and contributions from the owners of those establishments.)

In 2016, I was infuriated when Indiana’s legislators banned local governments from restricting the use of plastic bags at stores. The law prohibited local governments from banning (or taxing or placing fees on) plastic bags and similar single-use “auxiliary containers.” In a measure that clearly demonstrated that “home rule” is a fiction in Indiana, the law amended Indiana’s toothless home-rule statute to expressly bar local units of government from adopting “any prohibition, restriction, fee, or tax on items like plastic bags, paper bags, cups, boxes, or other one-time use packaging at stores.”

In Indiana, local governments retain that mythical “home rule” only so long as our legislative overlords approve of their “home rules.” Since our legislature is filled with MAGA Republicans who refuse to believe that climate change is a real thing, efforts by local folks to ameliorate environmental threats–even through such modest steps as banning the use of plastic bags–simply cannot be tolerated. 

When you live in a Red state, you soon learn that your legislature considers federalism–along with the protections of the Bill of Rights– optional.

Comments

Civil And Human Rights In Indiana

I recently participated in a Zoom Consortium convened by the Hammond Human Relations Commission. I was a member of a panel that discussed the current state of of civil liberties and human rights in our state.

Panel members were asked to collectively address two questions; a third “ask” was specific to our particular backgrounds.

The first question was “What legislative measures by this administration have caused greatest harm or generated positive outcomes pertaining to civil & human rights.” I responded that, in my opinion, virtually everything done by this administration has been harmful. (I added that the damage couldn’t have been done without the cowardly acquiescence of GOP legislators.) The Trump administration has declared war on civil rights, civil liberties and the Constitution.

The public is just beginning to recognize the multiple harms done by the awful “Big Beautiful Bill,” and Trump’s multiple ridiculous and unconstitutional Executive Orders, but the worst–again, in my humble opinion–has been the unrelenting assaults on “wokeness” and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. That federal assault has emboldened state-level culture warriors like Todd Rokita to pretend that good-faith efforts to level the civic playing field are really “reverse discrimination” against straight White men– a patently false excuse for the state’s vendetta against equal rights for women and minorities.

We were next asked if we had observed biases in the way information is disseminated in Indiana. My answer was really a repetition of observations I’ve shared here many times–about the fragmentation of today’s information environment, in which citizens aren’t all getting the same news or occupying the same realities, an environment which encourages people to choose “news” that confirms their biases—if they bother to consume any news at all.

I was then asked to expand on a paper I’d written about the effects of low civic literacy on democratic accountability, and to suggest solutions. (Ah, if only I had solutions…)

 As I explained, scholars attribute the erosion of American democracy to three interrelated causes: ignorance of politics and governance; the growth of inequality— including civic inequality and informational asymmetries—and a resurgent tribalism (racism and White Nationalism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, the urban/rural divide…). Civic ignorance complicates the interactions between citizens and their government, and it exacerbates inequality. Citizens who understand how the political system works are advantaged in a number of ways over those who don’t, including their ability to recognize when elected officials are violating their oath to uphold the constitution.

Americans’ widespread ignorance of the basics of our Constitution and legal system has greatly facilitated the growth of disinformation and propaganda. It has allowed the current administration to obscure the fact that the majority of Trump’s numerous Executive Orders are at odds with the Constitution.

The most obvious was his attack on birthright citizenship, which is explicitly set out in the 14th Amendment. Eliminating birthright citizenship would require a Constitutional amendment—it cannot be done in a petulant Executive Order.

Citizens who’ve encountered the 14th Amendment would know that.

There are many other examples. If citizens knew that the Constitution vests control of spending in Congress—not the executive branch—they would recognize that Trump’s Orders withholding funding formerly authorized by Congress violates the Constitutional Separation of Powers. They would recognize that his “Muslim ban” was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. They would understand that his various efforts to root out Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs not only violate the Free Speech provisions of the First Amendment but are also unconstitutionally vague–and why that vagueness matters.

Long term, the solution is to require a much more robust civic education curriculum in the nation’s schools—a curriculum that doesn’t simply educate students about the Constitution and Bill of Rights but also teaches accurate and inclusive history. (I went all through high school and college and never heard about the Trail of Tears, or the Tulsa massacre, for example.) But efforts to strengthen civics education come up against the far Right’s determination to destroy public education—to use vouchers to send public money to overwhelmingly religious private schools, very few of which offer civics or accurate, in-depth history instruction. Worse, attending such schools operates to reinforce tribal identities rather than inculcating allegiance to an overarching American constitutional philosophy. The effort to replace America’s public schools with religious “academies” was set out in Project 2025—and this administration is clearly following the prescriptions of that document.

Reinvigorating our public schools and requiring appropriate civic education is really the most effective solution to what ails us. If there are other solutions, I haven’t come across them.

Comments

The War On Inclusion

It’s a simple word, intended to communicate an equally simple concept. “Inclusion” is the practice or policy of extending equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized. In other words, it’s an affirmative effort to avoid discriminating against people based upon their race, religion or disability…a commitment to simple fairness.

The goal is to treat people as individuals, to avoid unfair exclusions that aren’t based upon the  deficits of a particular person but rather upon the practice of stereotyping all members of a group–a practice properly described as discrimination. What is it about that goal that so terrifies the MAGA cult? 

Here in Indiana, our MAGA Governor Mike Braun has proudly announced the elimination of “DEI” from hundreds of state programs and websites. As various outlets around the state have reported, that effort has included cancellation of grants to reduce racial health inequities, elimination of scholarships for Black and Hispanic students, bias training workshops and much more. Programs have been abolished, and references to them in agency websites erased in order to comply with a directive from Braun that ordered agencies to replace “diversity, equity and inclusion,” or DEI, throughout state government.

Instead, Braun decreed that state policies would elevate “merit, excellence and innovation.” 

I will just note in passing that the individuals currently governing Indiana fail–monumentally–to exhibit either merit or excellence, and that MAGA’s sole “innovation” has been an effort to return the state to the 1950s. I will also note that the clear intent of  substituting “merit and excellence”  for “equity and inclusion” is to convey the racist belief that merit and excellence aren’t attributes to be found in minority populations.

The Capital Chronicle dove into Braun’s effort, examining more than 3,800 pages of information released, and listing numerous examples highlighting the fervor of the attack on previous state efforts to ameliorate the effects of entrenched bigotries. For example, the Indana Department of Health has eliminated two positions– a disparities coordinator and a maternal health coordinator–despite the fact, as the Chronicle noted, that “Indiana has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the world — and Black mothers are more likely to die in the year following childbirth than their white counterparts.”

The linked report lists the elimination of dozens of these efforts, many of them obviously motivated by a desire to exclude minority populations, and others just unintentionally stupid or even humorous. The Indiana Economic Development Corporation, for example, which spends millions of dollars annually in an effort to bring new business into the state, has reportedly “revised its efforts.” I guess that means the agency won’t work to recruit businesses headed by Blacks or women, or enterprises seen as “woke,” despite the agency’s primary mission…

What about the other terms in DEI that so offend our MAGA White Christian male overlords?

Diversity simply means differences. For decades, scholarship has confirmed the benefits of diverse schoolrooms and business enterprises–benefits that are particularly important in a very diverse polity. If I visit your widget store and see no one who looks like me, it turns out that I am less likely to buy my widgets from you. If I am a resident of a city or town entirely governed by folks who represent only a small segment of the population, I’m less likely to participate in political life and more likely to harbor grievances.

And what about that third word: equity?

Equity is defined as the quality of being fair and impartial. Equity does not require giving minority folks extra advantages; it is a commitment to avoid disadvantaging people who don’t share your race, religion or able-bodiedness. When members of a majority group refuse to extend fundamental fairness to people outside their tribe, they are sending a message. They are telling us they don’t want to compete on a level playing field.

They are telling us who they are.  

Have some of the DEI efforts of the past few years gone overboard? Have some of them been less than effective–even “tilting” the playing field a bit too much? I’m sure they have. Whenever a society makes an effort to remedy a previous unfairness, some folks will go too far (and others will be too timid to be effective). But the all-out assault on efforts to erase practices that have been unfair and prejudiced isn’t an effort to correct excesses. It’s an effort to reinstate old prejudices, to offer justifications for bigotries, and to reinforce White (straight) male supremacy.

The Trump/MAGA assault on civic equality is an effort to return to some very Bad Old Days. We cannot allow it to succeed.

 
 
Comments

The Middle Finger Of The South

Ah, Indiana! Long understood by sentient Hoosiers as the middle finger of the south, a state trying valiantly to replace Mississippi at the bottom of the civic barrel.

I thought about Indiana’s retrograde governance when I came across an article from The Bulwark, arguing that while Trumpism is clearly incompatible with liberal democracy, it is quite compatible with the governance of  states that have never quite emerged from the Confederacy.

Liberal democracy has never put down deep roots in the South in the way it did across the rest of the country. The region never really abandoned its warped electoral politics and inclination to single-party cronyism, a Southern political instinct that helps explain how Democratic dominance transformed so completely into Republican one-party rule following the civil rights era. Inequality continues to define economic life in the region. Southern states have remained hostile to many minority groups, particularly LGBTQ Americans, and they are wildly out of step with most other states on reproductive rights. And incarceration in the South remains both less humane and more common than in other regions.

Trumpism is intent upon “southernizing” America. (Okay, I know that isn’t really a word…) The article quoted our creepy vice-president, JD Vance, who during the campaign opined that “American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons” and went on to conclude that “whichever side the hillbillies are on, wins.” He added that he applies that image to America’s current politics , because–in his (Yale-educated) hillbilly view– ” the Northern Yankees are now the hyperwoke, coastal elites.”

The Bourbons, in this understanding, were the Southern planters and professionals who opposed Reconstruction. They fomented discord among poor whites to ensure that they would focus their political energies on their peers rather than those who were their de facto rulers. That elite applauded when, In 1896, the Supreme Court approved segregation with the principle of “separate but equal.”

In 1898, America’s first coup d’etat took place as the Democrats of Wilmington, North Carolina issued a “White Declaration of Independence.” They were attacking the coalition of black Republicans and white Populists that had control of the local government in the 1890s, which the old Confederates of the city found intolerable. With their resentment and rage being fueled by white Democratic powerbrokers, two thousand armed men forced out the duly elected government. None were more pleased by this result than their Bourbon backers.

The article reports that this “banker-planter-lawyer” class is largely responsible for the South’s political and economic underdevelopment–that it was “ostensibly pro-business but viciously self-interested” and that as a consequence, the South as a region still lags economically—pinned down by poverty and hobbled by the absence of public investments. The states have few worker protections, and its working classes have difficulty earning a living wage, making It “virtually impossible” to exist on the income of a single, low-wage, 40-hour-a-week job, especially in the absence of social welfare/healthcare.

That paragraph could have been written about Indiana.

From “Right to Work” (for less) legislation, to one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems, to the legislature’s constant knee-bending to landlords who prey on the poor, to vicious cuts in Medicaid, to restrictions on abortion that are sending medical practitioners out of the state, to the theft of tax dollars from public schools in order to subsidize wealthy Hoosiers and religious schools…the list goes on.

Some years ago, I wrote about ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed; it applies to households with income above the federal poverty level, but below the actual, basic cost of living. United Way of Indiana found that more than one in three Hoosier households was unable to afford the basics of housing, food, health care and transportation, despite working hard, that 37% of households lived below the Alice threshold, (14% below the poverty level and another 23% above poverty but below the cost of living), that these were families and individuals with jobs, so most didn’t qualify for social services in Indiana, and that the jobs they fill are critically important–these are child care workers, laborers, movers, home health aides, heavy truck drivers, store clerks, repair workers and office assistants—and they are unsure if they’ll be able to put dinner on the table each night.

And just like those southern Bourbons, our elected overlords couldn’t care less. They focus instead upon deflecting responsibility by turning struggling Hoosiers against each other–hence the legislative attacks on trans children and DEI and moronic pronouncements that Black folks benefitted from the 3/5ths compromise. 

The theory is, if we’re provided with scapegoats, perhaps we won’t notice the Bourbon corruption, or the lack of public investment in social and physical infrastructure…

Comments