JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Biden’s Covid Investigation in China Pt.1
Brief # 121 – Foreign Policy
By Erin Meyer
The Biden Administration has asked the intelligence community to investigate the potential Wuhan laboratory leak allegation. President Biden’s statement was clear. “I have now asked the Intelligence Community to redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information that could bring us closer to a definitive conclusion, and to report back to me in 90 days.
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
Brief # 120 – Foreign Policy
By Ailin Goode
As the world continues to struggle with the pandemic and its compounding effects on global inequality, critical eyes have turned to the World Health Organization.
U.S. Inaction as Conflict in Ethiopia Worsens
Brief # 119 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
The conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia has not received much attention in the United States but is increasingly raising international concerns over the atrocities taking place. This fighting has led to thousands of deaths and countless injuries, many due to the indiscriminate shelling of cities and other human rights abuses by the National Forces.
Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Entry Into Home In Misdemeanor Cases
Brief # 167 – Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On June 23, 2021 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lange v. California. The case examined whether a warrantless entry into a home by a police officer to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanor suspect was permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Federal Judge Dismisses Facebook Antitrust Cases
Brief # 52 – Technology
By Henry Lenard
Two antitrust cases filed against Facebook Inc. by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of nearly all state attorneys general led New York’s Letitia James were dismissed by Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on June 28, 2021.
What Will Iranian Election Outcomes Mean for Relations with the US?
Brief # 118 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On June 18, 2021, Iran held its thirteenth presidential elections since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. National Elections are held every four years in the Shia majority nation. In order to run for president a candidate must be pre-approved by Iran’s Guardian Council. For the recent election cycle the council only approved seven candidates out of nearly 600, and it disqualified many moderates and women from running.
Supreme Court Again Punts On Non – Discrimination v. Religious Beliefs Issue
Brief # 166 – Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On June 17, 2021 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In a unanimous judgment the Court ruled that Philadelphia’s decision to refuse to contract with Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia (CSS) unless CSS agreed to certify same – sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The New Alzheimer Drug Controversy
Brief # 114 – Health & Gender
By S Bhimji
For decades, there has been intense research to develop drugs that could either slow down or prevent Alzheimer Disease (AD). So far there is no such drug. A few older drugs are available but these agents only diminish early-stage symptoms in a few patients. In most people the drugs are not helpful and their adverse effects are more harmful than the benefits. For the majority of AD patients, the treatment so far has been supportive care.
The Way Forward for Voting Rights Reform
Brief # 165 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On June 22, 2021 the United States Senate held a procedural vote on the floor of the Senate to determine if the For The People Act would be brought to the floor for a debate on the merits of the bill. The For The People Act is the massive 800 page voting rights bill already passed by the House of Representatives that would bring wholesale changes and minimum standards to voting laws in federal elections.
Restrictive State Voting Bills Have Multiplied In Aftermath of 2020 Election
Policy Summary: In the aftermath of the 2020 election state legislatures from around the country have responded with a number of bills that relate to the ability to cast a ballot and other activities associated with voting, such as how ballots are returned and how voter rolls are updated. A significant number of these state bills raise red flags because they appear to be in response to former President Donald Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was rife with fraud and were not as secure as they could have been. Despite statements from election officials, law enforcement and intelligence agencies that the 2020 elections were in fact secure and that no evidence of fraud was uncovered, state officials have still followed Trump’s lead and introduced a number of bills that purport to bring stability and security to future elections in their state.
The two most common ways that election improvements have been suggested are with restrictions on mail – in voting and in the registration and purge of voters from the state voter rolls. According to the Brennan Center for Justice one hundred sixty five bills have been filed in 2021 that restrict voting access and more than half of these bills deal with mail – in voting. And when it comes to adding and deleting voters to the state voting rolls, twelve states have introduced legislation that would expand the practice of how a voter can be removed from the state voter rolls. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Despite the fact that many of these state bills are stated to help provide confidence and integrity in the conduct of elections, the bills have come under fire as being nothing more than voter suppression efforts by the Republican Party. Nearly all of the restrictive bills identified by the Brennan Center of Justice were filed by Republican state legislators.
An examination of the state bills associated with mail – in and absentee voting show a determined effort by states to make it much more difficult to vote in this manner. According to the Pew Research Center mail – in voting accounted for more than 50% of all ballots cast during the 2020 primary season which exceeded by half the totals from the 2016 and 2018 general election. This can likely be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet states are still seeking to restrict who is eligible to vote by mail by eliminating the “no – excuse” rule and even prohibiting who can assist a voter. Bills in Arizona have even gone so far as to require absentee ballots to be returned in person and to have their ballots notarized. These bills in Arizona and other states that introduce technical requirements are questionable because they do not address President Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was riddled with fraud. With no evidence that there had been any fraudulent activity during the 2020 election these bills do nothing to address any structural flaws in the mail – in voting system in each state. What is being proposed are simply more barriers to casting a mail – ballot without any justification as to why these new barriers are needed. Eliminating “no – excuse” mail – in voting won’t stop a person from simply going to their polling booth as a last resort. And requiring absentee ballots to be returned in person would undermine the purpose of the absentee ballot in the first place – that people cannot always be in their precinct on election day, such as military and diplomatic personnel. The bills imposing new restrictions and limitations on absentee ballots and mail – in voting have no connection to Trump’s unfounded claims of fraud and will only serve to create more barriers to voting in each state.
The same problems plague the bills targeted at voter registration activities and purges of the voter rolls. Their connection to Trump’s claims of fraud are not rooted in fact and can therefore be considered unnecessary. Again, with no evidence of voter fraud or that an ineligible voter tried to cast a ballot, eliminating avenues to register to vote – such as the elimination of automatic voter registration bills in Arizona and New Jersey and the elimination of election day voter registration bills in five states – seem to address a problem that is non – existent. There are no instances of ineligible voters rushing to register to vote.
Instead, states like Georgia are introducing bills that seem to target minorities to prevent them from voting at all. And, in other cases, like in New Hampshire’s SB 31, procedures to purge voter rolls that have already been found to be in violation of the National Voter Registration Act are still being re – introduced. These unfocused and in many cases unnecessary bills only seem to be introduced to change the rules and give an advantage to Republican candidates. That may seem to be an unfounded accusation but a Republican election chair board was overheard remarking election changes are needed to give Republicans “a shot at winning.” If the only purpose is to give a political party an advantage then the bills being introduced in states should be given extra scrutiny to determine that they are in the best interest of the electorate and in having a safe and secure election and not introduced simply for a partisan advantage. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group advocating for voting rights.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s webpage on voting rights.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
What is the Biden administration doing in Afghanistan?
Brief # 103
Foreign Policy
What is the Biden administration doing in Afghanistan?
By Will Solomon
Policy Summary:
The War in Afghanistan is the longest running war in US history; this October will mark the 20th anniversary of the US-led invasion. Despite limited successes, the war has broadly been a failure. The Taliban remain active and in control of much of Afghanistan, and likely will return to power in some form in the event of a US withdrawal. The state is deeply unstable, corruption is endemic, and new terror groups—including the Islamic State—remain active. The strategic objectives of the two-decade long war have not been achieved, and the US remains mired in a sort of stalemate.
While other issues overshadowed the 2020 election, the Biden administration came into office with this reality fully clear—and pledged, during the campaign, to end the war. Indeed, Biden inherited from his predecessor an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan by May of this year. However, it has been unclear whether Biden intends to stick to this timetable, and many in his orbit are opposed to the agreement.
All this begs the question—if the United States is mired in an unwinnable war, and American soldiers’ presence is effectively the sole guarantor of the current regime not collapsing—what is this country doing in Afghanistan?
Analysis:
The thorniness of the question has deep parallels in US history—Vietnam, and Iraq, to name the obvious. As with Iraq in particular, the US also has a long history of meddling in Afghanistan, including supplying and promoting the forces it now seeks to defeat.
The obvious reality now is that the US cannot “win” this war in any meaningful way. It is also true, as critics of a US withdrawal point out, that without US military support the current Afghan government may fall to the Taliban, meaning the country would be a similar position to where it was on the eve of the US invasion. These critics argue that we should not sacrifice the “progress” that has been made in the intervening two decades—in women’s rights, representative democracy, etc.
So what exactly should we do?
While improvements in some aspects of the social situation in Afghanistan are real, they have come at the price of perpetual instability, an unfathomable civilian death toll—including heinous war crimes, committed by and with support from the United States, deeply rooted corruption, and an expanding drug trade. As was revealed in detail in the Afghanistan Papers, the US government has systematically lied about the course and status of the war.
At this point, it’s unclear what the United States can meaningfully do about the war, outside of withdrawing in an organized fashion. This is especially true given that the divide is increasingly between those who insist on a withdrawal, and those who would be content with a US military presence in that country in perpetuity.
This said, a recent article in Foreign Policy suggests that Biden may be attempting to facilitate a sort of power-sharing agreement between the current Afghan government and the Taliban. This suggests one sort of “compromise” to the current situation. While it’s frankly difficult to see this holding up long-term, without US troops in the country, a more organized withdrawal than the sort undertaken by the Trump administration—in Syria, for instance—might help lessen the impact of the United States leaving.
All this said, it must be made clear: it is long past time for the United States to exit this war. The US presence in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good, both in the Greater Middle East, and in this country. Ideally withdrawal will be completed in an organized fashion and obviously, the US should support all diplomatic efforts, including working with NATO and the UN, to help stabilize the country upon its withdrawal and end violence. But the US remaining in Afghanistan adds fuel to the fire, and it is time to leave.
Engagement Resources:
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”
https://aboutfaceveterans.org — “We are Post-9/11 service members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war and the use of military weapons, tactics, and values in communities across the country.”
Who are the Proud Boys?
Brief # 9 Social Justice
Who are the Proud Boys?
By Erika Shannon
March 8, 2021
During the Presidency of Donald Trump, many events unfolded that left the American people feeling uneasy. One of these events was the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots that were planned by white supremacists and Trump supporters. While the end of his Presidency was near, Donald Trump sat idly by and allowed his supporters to get carried away with their actions. This is synonymous with his attitude for much of his time in office, where we saw the emergence of white supremacist groups at an alarming rate. Our then-President had the chance to condemn them, and chose not to. For that reason, many of these organizations have gained a larger following than they ever had before. One of these white supremacist organizations, the Proud Boys, was actually formed as Donald Trump came into power. Since then, the Proud Boys have been involved in countless acts of violence and harassment here in the U.S.
Gavin McInnes launched the Proud Boys in 2016; McInnes was a far-right political commentator originally from Canada, who has become more of a political activist in recent years. His violent nature is reflected in the actions and principles of the Proud Boys, who will resort to violence if they feel it is necessary. According to their archived Proud Boys USA website, their basic tenet is that they are “Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world” and they long for the days when “girls were girls and boys were boys.” The group has four degrees of membership within it, and in order to become a first-degree, you must publically and proudly declare your Western chauvinism. To become a second-degree member of the Proud Boys, you must endure a beating until you can yell out the names of five breakfast cereals. This is to demonstrate your endurance and control. The third-degree of membership requires a “Proud Boy” tattoo. A fourth-degree member is one who has taken part in “engaging in a major conflict for the cause.”
Their archived website also states that while they do not encourage being arrested, those who are will immediately become a fourth-degree. A rule for members to follow is that they may not watch pornography or masturbate more than once a month, in order to show sexual restraint and be able to resist women.
Over the past five years of being in existence, the Proud Boys have participated in protests and rallies, while attempting to spread false information and instigate conflict with left-wing groups. A “Unite the Right” rally was held in August 2017, where an assault took place, and in October 2018, members of the Proud Boys charged protesters at a speech being given by McInnes. In January 2019, a member of the Proud Boys threatened the Democratic mayor of Portland, Oregon, saying that he was “coming for him.” There were also reports in 2019 that Proud Boys were going to the homes of their critics and menacing them to try and show that there were “consequences” to their actions.
Throughout 2020, the Proud Boys showed up at Black Lives Matters protests to heckle them and incite violence. They often showed up armed and ready to use their weapons; some members were arrested for things like pointing firearms at others and unlawful use of a weapon. The Proud Boys also were accused of spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19 on Twitter, Facebook, and Telegram. Donald Trump even acknowledged the Proud Boys during a presidential debate, telling them to “stand back and stand by,” regarding ANTIFA. Trump repeatedly refused to condemn the actions and values of the Proud Boys, which ultimately contributed to their role in the Capitol riots on January 6th. Not only were members of the Proud Boys present for the riots, some were also arrested and federally charged with their actions and involvement.
It is a sad day when a country moves backwards, and by allowing white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys to rise and flourish, Donald Trump certainly contributed to this problem. By the end of his Presidency, Proud Boys membership was in the thousands
The Proud Boys exist to further divide our nation, and to foster hate against the left and anything the left stands for. This includes civil rights issues, LGBTQ+ issues, social justice issues, and women’s rights. The Proud Boys have been designated as a terrorist organization for good reason: their violent, racist ideology is a threat to American democracy and civility. While we should be focusing on rebuilding America to be a more inclusive place for all, groups like the Proud Boys only wish to further the place of white men in society. In order to truly move forward and rebuild America, an emphasis must be placed on silencing these white supremacist groups, like the Proud Boys, and making sure that they are not able to expand.
Engagement Resources
- For information on other hate groups or to report a hate crime, visit the Southern Poverty Law Center.
- To find out how the FBI investigates hate crimes committed by these groups, click here.
The Equality Act Seeks To Expand LGBQT Discrimination Protections
Policy Summary: On February 18, 2021 Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives. The bill is popularly known as the Equality Act and had been introduced in various forms in previous sessions of Congress. The bill seeks to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, and other purposes.” The text of the bill uniquely specifies and amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation are protected categories under that law. In addition to adding these new protected categories to that landmark law the bill also expands coverage for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act housing and education laws and a number of other federally funded programs. And finally, the bill states specifically that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 cannot be used to challenge a provision in the Act and cannot be used as a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Act.
On February 25, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill by a 224 – 206 vote. The bill was then sent to the Senate for a vote in the coming weeks. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The Equality Act that was introduced in 2021 is one of the legislative priorities that President Biden promised during his presidential campaign. While the stated purpose of the bill is straightforward in that it seeks to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation” a closer examination of the text of the bill reveals that the bill is not as open – ended as it may seem on the surface. The bill directly targets existing federal laws that may be vulnerable to unexpected interpretations and seeks to get out in front of these gaps in the law in order to provide more clarity on the application of the law in the future.
By directly including gender identity and sexual orientation in the Equality Act, the bill is directly responding to the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court employment discrimination case that was decided last year. That case provided protections to lesbian, gay and transgender persons. Nowhere were gender identity and sexual orientation included in the case. So, in order to prevent those categories of persons being left out, they were specifically mentioned in the Equality Act in order that they not be left out and vulnerable to discrimination claims in a future interpretation of the case that might omit them. The law is so often open to opposing interpretations and this bill clarifies what a future interpretation must include.
While mandating that gender identity and sexual orientation must be included in discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the bill then expands those protections into a number of areas that were not previously covered. The protections against discrimination on those bases now extend into financial credit, service on juries and “public accommodations” like retail shops and stadiums. This bill seeks more comprehensive coverage against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and the fact that this bill is national in scope will provide that since twenty – seven (27) states do not currently provide LBGQT anti – discrimination laws.
Finally, the bill anticipates the counter argument from religious supporters that protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation violates religious liberty by specifically eliminating the use of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 as a basis to challenge the Act and to use it as a defense when accused of discrimination. That law states that the federal government cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion but the law has come under fire recently. Supporters of religious liberty often cite that law as a way to avoid complying with laws they disagree with, such as laws in support of LGBQT rights. The RFRA did not anticipate this recent situation. The Equality Act handles this by stating specifically that the RFRA can no longer be used as a defense in these kinds of discrimination cases.
There likely is a fight brewing in the Senate (and maybe in the courts down the road) but for now the Equality Act does what it can to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected categories, expand those protected categories in various areas of social life and across the nation where states have not provided protections for the LGBQT community and in declaring that religious liberty cannot be used to deprive LGBQT persons of basic civil rights. It is now up to the Senate to vote in support of the Equality Act. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Human Rights Campaign – non – profit group advocating for Equality For All.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s webpage on LGBQT non – discrimination protections.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Democratic Education and Practice
Brief # 55 Education Policy
Democratic Education and Practice
By Emily Carty
March 1, 2021
Summary
Schools are an ideal place to plant the seeds of democracy and cultivate a culture of learning, participation, and will to be informed and take action for one’s rights and ideals. Commentary from a recent Brookings Institute article contrasts the emphasis placed on preparing kids for a modern economy with the lack of resources to prepare kids for a modern democracy. Citing the constant criticisms of schools being unable to prepare graduates for the job market or college, the author notes that a demand for prepared, active citizens is lacking. Conservatives and progressives have their respective fears about civic education in schools — will it be propaganda, whitewashed history, or activist training to make major changes to our country? While those concerns do have their place, no one can deny that basic education around the political process, civil rights, and modern media literacy is much needed in this country.
Historically, initial debates in states around the purpose of public education have demonstrated that the priority was placed on civics — preparing kids to protect and defend their rights was put ahead of other necessary things like building a workforce. However that focus has since disappeared as our country’s educational mission become focused on building a modern-day technology and science-based workforce. The George W. Bush era’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act encouraged schools to place a greater concentration on math and language arts to keep up with the rapidly developing economy — it left civics and the modernization of democracy behind.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015 as a replacement for the NCLB act. It aims to place a greater emphasis on civics education in schools and provide equitable, well rounded education. The ESSA, which has funding through 2021, has several major funding goals, including setting educational civics education standards, and assuring state accountability for student performance It is the primary policy setting the agenda for civics education.
Researchers informing the act found that students from low-income families and schools were less likely to receive robust civics education, as schools were prioritizing math and language arts — the subjects that made up standardized tests. They also found that better civics education had an impact on student success rates, academic and non-academic, as well as young adults’ perception of the importance of democratic society. Thus, the ESSA has aimed to provide better funding for low-income schools to implement and support civics learning and to support all schools in requiring civics education in their curriculum and testing. The format and content of civics education however, is left up to states and local education agencies.
As funding for ESSA comes to an end, legislators and families across the nation have the chance to advocate for updated legislation that addresses our nation’s disillusion with democracy (as evidenced by the January insurrection).
Analysis
The inattention to teachingn democracy in schools had a turning point with the passage of the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). However ESSA serves as a gentle push rather than a driving force. Unfortunately, the act does not require states to implement standardized testing for civics, nor does it allocate fixed amounts of funding for civics education development. Instead districts have been simply encouraged to apply for grants and focus on developing a well-rounded education through creating more robust social studies and civics programs.
The decline in Americans’ faith in our American democracy is evident, in 2016 only 16 percent of millennials felt they could trust our institutions. This distrust could come from many sources, but the lack of education around our institutions, government, and the value of democratic practices is certainly a factor. A more recent study of the 2020 election results indicates the tides are turning — youth feel that it is their responsibility to participate in democracy and make change. The study suggests the majority of youth were mobilized in response to racial justice, rather than increased civics education or practice in schools. Nevertheless, this is a huge step in the right direction.
Outside of civics education from an academic standpoint, educational leaders agree that democratic practice built into school systems is key to developing an understanding and appreciation for democracy in the US and global context. When students see democracy in action, when they are creators and participants in their environment. From small classroom practices to school- and district-wide engagement, practical democracy teaches children that we all have power to act and to make our voice heard.
Without the demand for robust, relevant civics education and practice in schools, it is uncertain if we will see a more civic-fluent new generation that values democratic principles.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
The Civics Renewal Network – The CRN is a group of nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations committed to strengthening civic life in the US by increasing the quality of civics education in our nation’s classrooms and by improving accessibility to quality, free learning materials. Check out their site for advocacy and teaching resources.
Facing History and Ourselves — FHO is a nonprofit with a mission to promote a citizen body that understands history and the responsibilities of an informed democracy. They encourage a participatory and informed democracy, and inspire agency in all to address issues such as racism and inequity. Check out their resources, webinars, curriculum, and community of educators to start the conversation about civics in your community.
iCivics – This site full of fun and educational activities related to civics education for youth was developed by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Check out their resources for learning about how to participate in democracy and be an effective citizen.
SOURCES
Brookings – We’ve Built Schools for Modern Economy
Education Commission of the States – Mapping Opportunities for Civic Education
Truthout – Education Central to Democracy
Center for Civics Education – Role of Civics Education
Education Next – Where the Left and Right Agree on Civics Education
Washington Post – Parents Should be Asking for Civics Education in Schools
Washington Post – After Capital Attack Civics Teachers Struggle
The Century Foundation – Putting Democracy Back into Education
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
Brief # 97 Health & Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
By Erin McNemar
March 2, 2021
Policy
Throughout his presidential campaign, President Joe Biden made it clear that women’s rights were going to be a leading issue during his administration. Over the summer, Biden released a policy proposal titled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan outlined different areas in which women are disproportionately impacted, and how he intends to level the playing field. One of the major areas the plan focuses on is expanding and protecting healthcare for women.
Historically, women have faced an uphill battle regarding their right to health coverage. Whether this has been due to lack of representation of women in government or the stigmas created around services like Planned Parenthood, there is a clear bias against women in our healthcare system. While the Affordable Care Act was able to expand health care coverage to many underserved Americans, Biden provides evidence that there is still work to be done. Access to quality healthcare for women, decreasing the maternal mortality rate; ensuring reproductive rights are priority areas of need for women. In Biden’s plan he raises the question: how do we address these health inequalities?
Analysis
When examining Biden’s proposal for women’s health, there is a lot to unpack. The first is the issue of maternal mortality. Biden explains that even before the pandemic hit, the United States had one of the highest rates of deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth among developed countries. Additionally, these rates were higher among women of color. In order to address the issue, Biden has stated he wants to turn his attention to the work being done in California. In California, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative formed a strategy that cut the state’s number of maternal mortality rates in half. Biden expressed that he plans to implement that strategy on a national level.
In the next part of his plan, Biden discusses the protection of reproductive rights. Many of Biden’s healthcare policies focus on building upon what was created in the Affordable Care Act; reproductive rights are not an exception to that. In addition to making sure that women can receive free contraception, Biden wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment and ensure women’s rights under Roe v.s. Wade. Other steps Biden is looking to take in his administration are to prohibit states from creating laws that violate Roe v.. Wade, restore funding to Planned Parenthood and rescind the Mexico City policy.
Lastly, Biden expresses that when he says he wants to expand healthcare coverage for women, he means all women. This includes allocating resources and updating policies for LGBTQ+ women, women with disabilities, incarcerated women, women veterans and native women. In a country that was developed on the ideas of equality and freedom, striving for equity in healthcare should be a top priority.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Learn more about the Affordable Care Act.
- Read about women and gender equity in
- See what resources are offered at Planned Parenthood.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
Technology Brief #39
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
February 28, 2021
By Scout Burchill
Summary:
A new experiment in online moderation governance has been taking shape at Facebook over the past two years and its most consequential test is fast approaching. By the end of April Facebook’s Supreme Court, officially called the Oversight Board, will declare a ruling on the company’s permanent ban of Donald Trump from the platform.
Facebook’s Oversight Board was first conceived of in 2018 as an independent quasi-legal governing body that would advise Facebook on its content moderation policies and litigate appeals of users over content moderation enforcements. In the years since, Facebook has invested considerably in developing the operational procedures, powers and composition of the Board. The Board abides by an official public charter and currently consists of 20 members from various areas of expertise as well as diverse backgrounds. By design, the Oversight Board only has the authority to review user appeals that involve ‘take-downs’ of content and can rule to either uphold or overrule them. The Board is indirectly funded by Facebook through a trust to the tune of around $130 million.
Since the Board began officially accepting cases in October 2020, it has already received over 180,000 appeals. The Board itself is responsible for deciding which cases to take on. The inaugural docket was published on December 3rd, 2021 and of the 7 cases taken up so far, the Board overruled Facebook’s moderation decisions on 5 of them, upheld 1 of them and was unable to make a ruling on the 7th because the content was removed by the user. The next docket will include a ruling on Trump’s posts and suspension following the January 6th Capitol Riots.
Analysis:
Facebook’s Oversight Board is a highly controversial experiment in private governance and self-regulation that could pave the way for future models of online governance. The simple fact that Facebook has gone ahead and created its own quasi-legal framework and corporate tribunals is a testament to both the enormous power and reach of the company as well as the utter lack of institutionalized regulatory models for dealing with content moderation policies and speech in the digital sphere. The Trump case will most likely be the defining moment of this nascent institution.
The biggest challenge of any budding governance model is its ability to garner legitimacy in the opinion of the public. Facebook has been working for over two years to construct the Oversight Board and has put in considerable effort to convince the public that this body is a legitimate, independent and transparent entity that will provide accountability for the company’s policies as well as an option for recourse for perceived wrongs. The Oversight Board’s charter laying out the governance framework of how the Board operates is publicly available on the Board’s website (link attached below) and is incredibly accessible. Of particular note is the explicit and purposeful choice of the word “people” instead of “Facebook users” throughout the charter, signaling just how grand and ambitious the company’s vision of the Oversight Board truly is.
In essence, the Board is the ideological fusion of constitutionalism and corporatism. Similar to the Supreme Court, the Board is designed to act as a check on the power of specific content moderation decisions of the company. It has the discretion to accept or reject which cases to review (with some caveats described later). The analogy only goes so far though. As of now, one important way in which it differs from a Supreme Court is that it evaluates each case individually and its rulings do not necessarily set precedents or changes in policy.
The identities of the Board members are publicly available on the Board’s website. They can serve up to three three-year terms. Facebook and the public can recommend Board members, but ultimately trustees appoint the members. The Board reviews and decides on cases in accordance with Facebook’s own content policies and values, so it doesn’t necessarily have free reign to make its own standards. To stretch the Supreme Court analogy a bit further, debates between textualism and contextualism are sure to define many the Board’s rulings and interpretations in cases to come. Finally, the Board’s rulings on individual content decisions are binding for Facebook and for each ruling, the Board must publicly publish its decisions and arguments.
There are certainly reasons to see this approach as a positive development for dealing with controversies over content moderation policies, especially in light of all the controversial and seemingly ad-hoc content moderation decisions that have been made over the years. However, as with most tech issues, the Oversight Board has its fair share of naysayers and skeptics. Critics of the Oversight Board view the corporate tribunal as a sham and a public relations tool at best, rather than a legitimate court of recourse.
Perhaps the most controversial topic is the independence of the Oversight Board. If Facebook cannot convince the public that the Board is indeed impartial and independent then its future will surely be doomed. Besides the fact that the Board is Facebook’s own creation, critics also suggest that financial incentives may dissuade members of the Board from being too tough on Facebook. According to reports, the current 20 members are paid six-figure salaries for around 15 hours of work a week.
While the initial rulings of the Board do seem to suggest that it is willing to overrule Facebook’s own moderation enforcement decisions, the actual power of the Board to influence Facebook’s policies is extremely limited. Since the Board’s inception, this has been one of the most controversial topics from both within and without the company. The Board has no authority to rule on content that has not been removed. This means that the Board has no say on divisive or incendiary content like hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories that remain up on the site. Furthermore, the Board can only issue guidance or advisory opinions when it comes to the actual workings of the company’s algorithmic policies and operational procedures. Issues such as political advertising, algorithmic incentives and the deplatforming of users and groups can only be considered at the direct behest of Facebook, and even then, the Board’s arguments are not binding. This will effectively curb the Board’s ability to make any decisions that might run counter to Facebook’s business model.
Critics also claim that the Oversight Board is a mere mirage to stave off stricter regulations against the company and divert outrage over controversial and politically fraught decisions. In other words, it’s a convenient, pseudo-independent arm of the company wherein the moral implications of Facebook’s business model and societal harms can be offloaded and then lavishly presented as accountability. Accountable Tech, an independent organization, as well as another independent collective of activists and academics called the Real Facebook Oversight Board are among the most outspoken critics of Facebook’s Oversight Board.
A recent conversation between the Carnegie Endowment and Oversight Board co-chair, former Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt revealed that the Board’s vision for the future is to go even bigger. Thorning-Schmidt suggested that if the Board proves to be an authoritative and legitimate body, other platforms and tech companies may opt in, forming a sort of super tribunal. It is amazing to consider the fact that if this experiment proves to be a success, Facebook’s Oversight Board may end up presiding over one of the largest jurisdictions of any legal system in the world. Speech norms differ widely across the globe, and humor especially varies from culture to culture, so one court to rule them all may ultimately prove unfeasible and easily corrupted by corporate and political interests.
All this background points to the importance of the upcoming Trump decision. Facebook has invested considerable amounts of money and time into making its Oversight Board a legitimate body of governance and accountability. If anything, legitimacy and trust are built over time and it would have made sense for the Oversight Board to steer clear of particularly polarizing and politicized rulings. But after the events of January 6th and the suspension of the sitting president, this position has become untenable. Not ruling on this case would deal a severe blow to the legitimacy of the institution right as it is getting off the ground. Currently, the Oversight Board is accepting feedback from the public on the Trump case. You can submit your very own ‘amicus brief’ to the court via the Oversight Board’s website. Reportedly, Trump personally called Mark Zuckerberg to express his opposition to the composition of the current Board and has even submitted his own appeal, which will be considered in the ruling.
The importance of the Oversight Board’s ruling on the Trump case cannot be overstated. Even though the Oversight Board is technically no Supreme Court, its ruling on the Trump case will reverberate just as resoundingly as a Supreme Court decision. There is a lot on the line not only for Facebook’s experiment in self-regulation, but also for future models of internet and social media governance.
Resistance Resources:
The Oversight Board’s Official Website
The Real Facebook Oversight Board
https://the-citizens.com/real-facebook-oversight/
Accountable Tech Organization and their Report on the Oversight Board
https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Move-Slow-and-Fake-Things.pd
Sources and Further Reading for the Curious
Insider Account of the Making of the Oversight Board
New York Times Article on Trump Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/business/media/trump-facebook-oversight-board.html
Times Magazine on the Oversight Board
https://time.com/5934393/facebook-oversight-board-big-tech-future/
Oversight Board’s Comments on Expanding to Include Other Platforms
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/11/facebook-oversight-board-other-social-networks-beyond-facebook/
Trump Submits Appeal to Oversight Board
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-submitted-an-appeal-to-facebook-oversight-board-2021-2
The Formation of Real Facebook Oversight Board
Reputable Criticisms of Oversight Board
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/17/the-facebook-oversight-board/
https://time.com/5933989/facebook-oversight-regulating-social-media/
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Brief #40 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Policy Summary
Fully autonomous weapons, the stuff of dystopian sci-fi novels, are now approaching reality. The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, and the UK are developing weapons systems with significant autonomy in their critical functions of selecting and attacking targets. If left unchecked the world could enter a destabilizing robotic arms race. These weapons include autonomous submarines, precision bombs and autonomous machine guns similar to the one that Iranians authorities claimed to have killed scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in late November.
Unlike drone weapons, which have a human albeit remote handler, Fully Autonomous Weapons Systems (FAWS) decide algorithmically who lives and who dies without further human intervention. FAWS systems cross a moral threshold that lack the inherently human characteristics such as compassion that are necessary to make complex ethical decisions. With a new administration the United States must take a leadership role in banning these weapons worldwide.
Analysis
Replacing troops with FAWS could likely make the decision to go to war easier and shift the cost of conflict even further onto civilians. FAWS would make tragic mistakes with unanticipated consequences that could inflame tensions a greater possibility.
Twenty eight countries have called for a pre-emptive ban on killer robots. In addition, the Non-Aligned Movement, the largest bloc of states operating in the UN, has called for a legally binding instrument stipulating prohibitions and regulations of such weapons. Austria, Brazil, and Chile support the negotiation of “a legally binding instrument to ensure meaningful human control over the critical functions” of weapon system. A few others have expressed their interest in non–legally binding mechanisms, such as a political declaration proposed by France and Germany. Until the US, China and its allies join this movement and ban companies from R&D the advancement and eventual deployment will only continue.
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service “U.S. policy does not prohibit the development or employment of FAWS. Although the United States does not currently have FAWS in its inventory, some senior military and defense leaders have stated that the United States may be compelled to develop FAWS in the future if potential US adversaries choose to do so.”
The US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, in an interim report released to Congress in October 2020, acknowledged the risks of autonomous weapons. The commission, headed by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, warned of pressure to build machines that react quickly, which could escalate conflicts. The panel strongly emphasized the need to have humans make decisions on launching nuclear warheads, for instance. The panel recommended anti-proliferation work as opposed to a treaty banning the systems, which it said would be against US interests and difficult to enforce. It is clear, though, that the US must stake out a position and lead the debate.
Renewal Resources
- The Federation of American Scientists provides science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security.
- Reaching Critical Will (RCW) is the disarmament programme of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the oldest women’s peace organisation in the world.
- Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) is an international network of legislators who work together to advance peace and understanding around the world.
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
Changing Tides: A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
March 1, 2021
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea.
Amaknak’s Iliuliuk Bay, where 300 foot vessels dock, offload fish, and fuel, drops dramatically to twenty fathoms. The basalt and andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks that form the cliffs of Mounts Ballyhoo and Split Top, and through which obdurate roads have been blasted, rise nearly two thousand feet from the bay edge. Thin soil, reddish, capped by tall grasses and shrub like a fur, holds tremulous purchase on the volcanic substrate. There is a wildness and fragility to Amaknak. With nearly three thousand residents, Amaknak is the most populous of Aleutian islands, and where Dutch Harbor provides anchorage to the North Pacific fishing and shipping fleets. Billions of dollars pass through each year.
The litoral margins of islands Amaknak and Unalaska house factories, supply stores, dynamite-blasted roads, and small mountains of CONEX containers that grow and shift and diminish as they are offloaded, filled with frozen fish product, and locked onto the decks of six-hundred foot carrier vessels. Semis move containers from factory to dock. Upon completing a two week trip, the lines of factory fishing vessels are caught by longshoremen, and crews of thirty or a hundred begin offloading into warehouse and waiting CONEX hundreds of thousands of pounds flash-frozen pollock, flatfish, rockfish, cod – reduced from individual entities to fillet, surimi, a gutted, buyable product. Everyday, at any hour, this churn twists. There is no night in Dutch Harbor.
I have walked across the island in winter, when the sun has set hours before and only rises perfunctorily. Darkness on the road is a brief punctuation between fluorescent, dazzling lights. Trucks drive back and forth and back again, from Westward Plant on Unalaska Island, to City Dock in Iliuliuk Bay, from Kloosterboer to town. Across the roads we have cut into the land, the dirt bleeds, sod hangs like skin, basalt is boney, black. There is the sense everywhere of wounds not quite healed. And very tired people scurry, moving fish.
Once, during the second world war, Dutch Harbor was a military base. Its ordnance formed Alaska’s Iron Ring and suffered in June of 1942 a Japanese air strike. You can see the remains of the fortification everywhere, and especially well from Mount Ballyhoo. Artillery digs make oddly geometric lines across the hump of Bunker Hill. Cement bunkers sit atop many hills, and beneath, into the rock, are bored caves like wormholes for storage and infantry movement. On Ulakta Head sits the highest battery in North America, at 897 feet. Below, anti-submarine nets once crossed the mouth of Iliuliuk Bay. On Hog Island, in spring, flowers nearly cover the gun shields of Fort Learnard. When the war ended, the U.S. navy leaked away, leaving the cement husks of conflict in the landscape.
Before the war, and before commercial fishing, and before Russian fur-trappers arrived in the eighteenth century and erected the green-steepled Church of the Holy Ascension on the slopes of Unalaska, indigenous Unangan people lived on the islands for thousands of years – though you’d be hard pressed to find their any obvious trace. The last several centuries of human development have been like the sudden, fitful seep of a volcano, radically amending landscape.
Beneath the water, we dig holes too. Trawlers whose nets scrape the benthos pull black mud, coral, old plastic, unsellable sculpin, sand lances and dollars, crab (last summer, a codend dumped five metric ton crab to deck – a slowly crawling mountain, up which deck hands ran, laughing), all to target this fish or that fish, at the whim of buyers. The seafloor we gouge with codends like bombs dropped from the sea roof is delicate spawning ground, quiet habitat in which competition has evolved for millenia. The act of trawl fishing seems to me much like spraying a machine gun through a forest, hoping to kill a deer. I don’t know how long it takes the mud to settle. Perhaps not so long as the ratifying of litigation that would eliminate wasteful fishing, but long enough.
Two noticeable heat “blobs” have bloomed off the west coast of North America over the last decade. In aerial heat maps of water temperature anomalies, the Bering Sea, during these events, registers a deep, brickish red. The color denotes an average temperature increase of 3ºC. Pacific cod, a fatty fish whose eggs are susceptible to heat flux took – and are taking – a beating. The alarmingly low cod stock, when I was collecting data aboard a pollock dragger last winter, limited catch size across fisheries and threatened to close areas to trawl fishing.
In 2019, another heat-bubble bloomed, moving from the South Pacific north, changing ecosystems, coastal climate, weather patterns. I saw, and became quite used to, many tons of northern sea nettle falling like giant raindrops from net to trawl alley. Jellyfish are impossibly durable invertebrates: they can survive in low-oxygen water when other species might seek cleaner currents. Warming trends boost plankton growth, diminishing oxygen. On a different boat, a factory vessel, there were, for a few days, as many jellyfish as pollock in my samples.
A broad sheet of sea ice seen on a clear winter dawn is a tremendous thing. It is soft and pinkish until the horizon, and behind you, the Bering Sea is black, gold, pink, translucent and green at wave tip – it is a field of rippling mirror. Sea ice, each winter, shrinks. Its southern edge moves north. Fish whose habitat is frontier ice move north. Do we follow?
Things are moving. We are moving. Of course, migration is a constant. Living matter seeks new ledges on which to root. Monarchs cross the Atlantic. Humans walk land bridges and steel bridges. Last week, the Perseverance Rover landed on Mars. Cold flamingos come down from the mountains, and the mountains rise up from the sea. The Earth grows callus in ridges, absorbing stampede, monsoon, quake and rot.
Looking at Dutch Harbor from Ballyhoo, I was reminded of a child’s playthings, spilt across a carpet. Blue-roofed houses, factories billowing fishmeal steam, roads that, from so high above, appear benign, even quaint. It’s impossible not to wonder what will happen to that place when, inevitably, we move onwards, perhaps northwards, and settle our boxes and buildings and giant semi trucks elsewhere. How long does it take an island to grow up, grow over, reclaim? And can the seafloor recover?
Learn More:
“New Marine Heatwave Emerges off West Coast, Resembles ‘the Blob’” NOAA (5 September, 2019), retrieved 27 February from: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/new-marine-heatwave-emerges-west-coast-resembles-blob
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
Agricultural Policy
Brief # 1
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
By Katherine Cart
February 22, 2021
POLICY
Racial inequity and farm policy, in this country, have long been indivisible; discrimination in agrarian land ownership and by the USDA has made a farce of an already flimsy bid for equality, for financial freedom and freedom to farm and ranch American land with the nonpartisan support of government. The COVID-19 pandemic has both exacerbated and highlighted the racism within the USDA’s treatment of farmers. Two recently introduced bills promise definitive, sweeping change: the Justice for Black Farmers Act was reintroduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ); the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act was introduced by Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA). The sentiments of these bills are reflected in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the full text of which was released by the budget committee for review on February 19. The passing of these bills would mark an inflection point in the intersection of civil rights and agrarian economy.
The bills recognize that discrimination is not explicit, that equity within US agriculture is not exclusive – a sentiment whose drum has been beaten until it should break, for there are those that will not hear. The passage of the bills would increase funding within the USDA for technical assistance and programs such as Conservation Stewardship and Rural Energy for America, benefitting all marginalized farmers and ranchers, and, one should note, boosting more ecologically conscious farming practices. The Justice for Black Farmers Act would also strengthen the antitrust measure of the Packer and Stockyards Act of 1921 – a boon to the wellbeing of the employees, ranchers and consumers of mega meat-packing conglomerates.
However stale the recitation of the impacts of the pandemic on small business may now be, the financial reality is no less grave. The Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, as described in the American Rescue Plan of 2021, would subsidize marginalized farmers and ranchers, mitigating the most acute financial effects of the pandemic. In the first round of pandemic aid, the smallest 10% of farms and ranches – those who spend more to make less, proportionally, and are more likely to be owned by a person of color – received each, on average, $300. “COVID-19 has exacerbated the challenges facing New Mexico’s farmers and ranchers. Yet, Hispanic, Native American, and Black farmers in New Mexico did not receive their fair share of COVID-19 relief under the last administration,” said Senator Ben Ray Luján, “this legislation is an important step toward addressing this historic injustice, and it provides farmers and ranchers of color with the targeted relief needed to survive the pandemic and thrive in the years to come.”
In an effort to slow the proportional decline of Black-owned farms, the Justice for Black Farmers Act would create a Farm Conservation Corps sponsored by the USDA. Young adult participants from socially disadvantaged communities would gain experience on local farms and ranches, and be paid through the USDA, at no cost to farmers grossing less than $250,000 per annum. Successful participants would be given priority for new land grants of up to 160 acres. Both bills also provide increased funding for 1890s land grant universities and other HBCUs, fortifying the theoretical and technical skill of young farmers. The bills also seek to provide greater access to legal aid and education for farmers of color, with the intent to lessen the impact of heirs’ property on Black-ownership of farming acreage. The modalities of the bills are attractive in their targeted upshots; they address systematic problems with systematic solutions. Leah Penniman, Co-Executive Director and Farm Manager of Soul Fire Farm, describes Justice for Black Farmers as, “the opportunity to correct decades of discrimination, preserve agricultural lands, and equip the next generation of farmers who will feed the nation.”
ANALYSIS
These bills are not fundamentally radical. They acknowledge the constitutionality of fair and equal treatment. Support of their rhetoric has bipartisan support. USDA Chief of Staff Katherine Ferguson stated that the USDA was “pleased to see the introduction of the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color,” and that the bill would “bring much needed economic assistance during the pandemic and begin to advance equity for farmers of color.” The likelihood of the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act being passed as part of the American Rescue Plan is high; the 2021 budget resolution, according to a recent House Committee report, “laid the groundwork for bold action by providing the option of using the budget reconciliation.” The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee on February 22. The agricultural component of the plan is largely uncontroversial and not in threat of elimination. Senate Majority Leader Schumer predicts President Biden will sign the plan before March 14. Justice for Black Farmers was introduced to the Senate on February 8 and will be addressed following the resolution of the American Rescue Plan.
Engagement Resources
Building Local Food Economies:
Maintaining and strengthening local economies through diversification of food and food suppliers. https://cefs.ncsu.edu/food-system-initiatives/local-food-economies/a-government-guide-on-building-local-food-economies/
Farm Aid:
Works with local, regional and national organizations to promote fair farm policies and grassroots organizing campaigns designed to defend and bolster family farm-centered agriculture. https://www.farmaid.org/
National Black Farmers Association:
Encourages the participation of small and disadvantaged farmers in gaining access to resources of state and federal programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.blackfarmers.org/
Learn More:
“Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, Smith, Warnock, and Leahy Announce Comprehensive Bill to Address the History of Discrimination in Federal Agricultural Policy.” Cory Booker United States Senator for New Jersey (9 February, 2021), retrieved February 18 from: https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-warren-gillibrand-smith-warnock-and-leahy-announce-comprehensive-bill-to-address-the-history-of-discrimination-in-federal-agricultural-policy
“Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act 2021.” 117th Congress (2021), retrieved February 18 from: https://www.warnock.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Emergency-Relief-for-Farmers-of-Color-Act-of-2021.pdf
Presser, Lizzie. “Their Family Bought Land One Generation After Slavery. The Reels Brothers Spent Eight Years in Jail for Refusing to Leave it.” ProPublica (15 July, 2019), retrieved February 18 from: https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/
Statement by Katherine Ferguson, USDA Chief of Staff, on the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act (2021, February 9) retrieved February 18 from: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/02/09/statement-katharine-ferguson-usda-chief-staff-emergency-relief
Ramgopal, Kit, and Lehren, Andrew W. “Small farmers left behind in Trump administration’s COVID-19 relief package.” NBC News (9 August, 2020), retrieved February 20 from: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/small-farmers-left-behind-trump-administration-s-covid-19-relief-n1236158