JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
President Trump Abandons Battle To Add Citizenship Question To U.S. 2020 National Census
Brief #91—Civil Rights
By Rod A Maggay
Democratic Candidates Stance on Breaking Up Big Tech Garners Both Support and Opposition
Brief #46—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO By Ron Israel, Managing Editor of U.S. RESIST NEWS and The U.S. RESIST NEWS Team
Florida Enacts “Poll Tax” Fifty – Five Years After Being Outlawed By U.S. Constitution; State Action
Brief #90—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
The EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) Rolls Back Regulations for Coal Industry
Brief #60—Environment
By Quixote Vassilakis
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision Blocking “Citizenship Question” From Being Added To Next Census
Brief #36—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Trump Signs Humanitarian Aid Bill
Brief #36—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Why Does the Ban on Huawei Matter?
Brief #36—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
States Have a Mixed Response in Dealing with a Nation-wide Measles Outbreak
Brief #58—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Trade, Not Aid: $12 Billion Aid Package for American Farmers Is Met with Mixed Responses
Brief #19—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
As the chaos and confusion of the trade war continue to prove problematic on both domestic and global levels, President Trump has attempted to offset the damage done to a critical part of the U.S. economy.
Last week, it was announced that the Trump administration would award $12 billion in federal aid for the American farmers who had been affected by the tariffs. The effects felt throughout the midwestern farming communities have been severe. Farmers across the rural midwest had been completely shut of the international markets that annually provide buyers for their crops, helping the U.S. economy to continue its healthy rates of productivity.
Trump ruled that such a maneuver was necessary without congressional vote. There is little question that these farmers are facing financial problems that are only going to get worse if the trade war continues. The response from the American people since the plan was announced, though has been primarily been less than enthusiastic.
It hasn’t only been the American taxpayers who aren’t happy about it. Speakers from many farming and agriculture driven communities across the midwest and southern parts of the U.S have also expressed fear and distain at the prospect of the bailout.
Even after it was announced that the European Union would begin purchasing more soybeans grown in the U.S, responses still remained primarily negative.
Policy Analysis
When we consider why American farmers have responded so negatively at the prospect of receiving government aid, there are several key factors that must be taken into account.
Firstly, it must be noted that the aid would not be needed if President Trump had not implemented tariffs that caused significant problems within the global agriculture markets in the first place. Products such as soybeans and grain as well as beef, pork, and chicken are often sold by American farmers through overseas markets. The retaliatory tariffs imposed by Canada and Mexico as well as Europe have resulted in them being shut out of these markets and the cost for the farmers doing the selling will likely be in the billions, as financial analysts have indicated.
The problems that Trump’s tariffs have caused within the agricultural commodities market cannot be overstated. For many of the farmers who operate small to mid size enterprises, the prospect of losing the market share of their crops and products is extremely frightening. Soybeans were among the first U.S. agricultural exports to be negatively effected by the trade war. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, July 9th saw the price of soybeans fall to roughly $7.79 a bushel, the commodity’s lowest dip in almost a decade. Meanwhile in Brazil, soybean futures soared above those in the U.S. by $2.21 per bushel.
Commodity producers know just how difficult it is to recover a market share that has been lost. Soybean farmers saw something similar happen when President Richard Nixon imposed an embargo on American grown soybeans in 1978. Years later, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter imposed another on all U.S. goods being exported to the Soviet Union. Both policies proved problematic, negatively effecting the U.S. reputation as a reliable supplier within global trade markets, causing international buyers to quickly lose confidence in both American goods and producers.
Another problematic element of Trump’s plan to bailout America’s farmers is that it may cause problems within non-farming states. In the American north, many citizens, both liberal and conservative have expressed great concern for their rail transportation system. The proposed Gateway rail project would keep the Amtrak line, the New Jersey Transit and most of the Boston-Washington rail corridor from suffering further damages. People throughout the Northeast have raised their eyebrows at the fact that the farming states that would receive the federal aid package are predominantly red, while their states are primarily blue. While the necessary aid is being provided for people in communities that voted for Trump, the pressing need in their part of the country is receiving neither aid not attention from their government. This is not helped by Trump’s previous tax bill which largely effected blue states such as New York and New Jersey, nor by the fact that the aid for the farmers was generated by their own tax dollars.
Farmers across American have posed similar responses to Trump’s proposed aid for them, though, and the verdict seems to be that they do not want it. They want their market share restored and to have the same free market access and free trade options that they enjoyed before Trump’s tariffs were implemented. Those systems proved beneficial to small farming communities across the country and therefore to the entire U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs have had exactly the opposite effect.
American farmers understand what is best for their businesses and they know that it is not Trump’s federal aid bailout. Their cries have been and remain for “trade, not aid.”
Resistance Resources
- Adopt-a-State is an organization dedicated to helping political activists and volunteers in blue states connect with each other.
- Policy Link is a research institute dedicated to helping advance economic and social policy.
- Organic Trade Association is a leading agricultural trade publication that provides resources for those within their community.
This brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact sam@usresistnews.org
Trump’s Healthcare Policy is Built Around Destroying the Affordable Care Act
Policy Summary
Trump’s healthcare policy is largely built upon destroying the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and throughout the last year, he has continually attempted to destroy it brick by brick. From two other briefs reporting on this, we’ve seen that the strategy has shifted from the attempted legislation to wholly restructure and destroy the ACA. The latest attack comes by way of a decision to put a $10 billion risk adjustment program on hold in order to supposedly hold up a court decision. The risk adjustment program takes money from healthier customers in the ACA marketplace and redistributes it to the sicker customers so that there is an even spread of premium cost. This creates a stability for the market that without can make the insurance market more uncertain for the sick people that are the most vulnerable to changes. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
This policy comes on the back end of many Trump Administration strategies to debilitate ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare. The difference with this policy is that it could hike up insurance costs much more quickly, and right before midterm elections. This also comes after the market was beginning to even out after a couple years of financial and political uncertainty. Ultimately, all these attacks are leading to higher healthcare costs for people. This comes at an incredibly high cost to the sickest in the US, and will affect them the most. This policy comes with a slew of other healthcare policies that are debilitating American’s access to adequate healthcare. From the sheer cost of reuniting migrant children and parentstaking away from healthcare funds, to the abolishment of the individual mandate, health care costs are getting ever more expensive for Americans. There is one group who seeks to profit off of the sick, and that is the healthcare consultants. We’re forced to question the real constituents of Trump’s health care policies—his blue-collar worker base or the white collar criminals of the billionaire class? LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
American Physicians Association (APHA)– Donate to this national physicians group dedicated to protecting and advocating for the ACA, read their materials on why the ACA is important.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support. Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org
photo by rawpixel
Devos Invests in the Pockets of For-Profit Colleges at the Expense of Defrauded Students
Brief #24—Education
Policy Summary
For-profit colleges are privately owned, post-secondary schools operated by businesses with the goal of maximizing their profits; most students are enrolled in two-year certificate programs. The schools focus on enrolling a stream of new students with little effort in improving educational programs. Unsurprisingly, most students drop out and are left with crushing student debt. Education Secretary Betsy Devos is proposing new DOE rules that would cut an estimated $13 billion in federal student loan relief for students defrauded by for-profit colleges. The changes eliminate the 2016 Borrower Defense rule, which provided student loan relief in a wide range of cases by the Obama administration after the collapse of ITT Tech and Corinthian College.
Since 2015, DOE has received more than 100,000 claims which are under review. The proposal will only apply to loans after July 1, 2019. Devos stated that DOE lays out clear rules which schools must follow in order to “avoid trouble” but also stated that students are obliged to conduct their own research on for-profit schools because “postsecondary students are adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions if they have access to relevant and reliable data about program outcomes.” Under the plan, students are eligible for loan relief only if they can prove that their school knowingly misled them with statements or actions that directly led them to take out loans or enroll at the school. Some committee members argued that the new proposal will prevent taxpayers from paying for unreasonable claims of fraud. LEARN MORE
DOE officials will also allow schools to defend themselves against claims of fraud because “schools deserve to defend themselves against accusations that could damage their reputations and revenue.” Such changes could strip students of their rights to recourse, making it next to impossible for students who bring claims to receive adequate relief. For instance, for-profit schools have forced students into arbitration agreements – a practice banned under the Obama administration due to the unequal bargaining power between students and schools. While the Obama administration granted full relief for borrowers, the current DOE announced that it will provide only partial relief for borrowers based on income. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Unlike the Borrower Defense rule, which allowed relief in many cases dealing with breach of contract issues, Devos’ requirement that students must prove that a school knowingly misled them places the burden of proof unreasonably on students who have little to no access to a school’s internal operations or materials that could potentially prove a school’s intent. Eliminating the Borrower Defense rule essentially allows predatory schools to further mislead and defraud students.
Furthermore, companies running alternative schools, such as Camelot Education, have been accused of perpetuating staff-on-student violence. An investigation by The Teacher Project found allegations of abuse in Camelot schools spanning 10 years and three states in Reading; Lancaster; Philadelphia; New Orleans; and Pensacola, Florida. Although students described prison-like conditions in these schools – where they have been taunted, beaten, and isolated in order to maintain obedience and control – no staff member faced discipline or criminal charges.
It is no coincidence that for-profit colleges are more likely to recruit low-income students and underrepresented minorities by sending circulars to housing projects and assuring the availability of loans. DOE’s statement regarding the need to protect students from predatory lenders while simultaneously utilizing a patronizing tone of personal responsibility telling its victimized students to walk a tight line of perfection is deeply disturbing. For-profit schools deceptively funnel their revenues into advertising and enrollment efforts rather than into quality education programs, ensuring that a steady stream of tuition dollars will flow into the pockets of greedy executives and shareholders. Research also shows that community colleges may provide a better education at lower costs but budget pressures often mean that they are unable to meet the demands for higher education. Students unable to get into these programs are left with no option but to attend for-profit schools; the alternative is no postsecondary education – not a particularly viable option in a global economy where having a college degree has become a bare necessity to survive.
Rather than trying to squeeze blood out of stones, perhaps the DOE should focus on tightening regulation at for-profit colleges and decreasing the costs of nonprofit public or private schools, especially for low-income families. Taxpayer investment in student aid should also follow scrutiny on whether students are able to complete their studies and earn enough to justify pay back of their loans. Investing in public education to uplift disadvantaged students rather than well-to-do executives is not such a bad idea considering that a well-educated populace is essential to acountry’s successful social and economic welfare. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Higher Ed for Higher Standards – Growing coalition of college presidents, trustees, chancellors, and state system leaders who believe aligned expectations and strong partnerships between K-12 and postsecondary leaders are critical to improving student success.
American Council on Education (ACE) – ACE is the nation’s most visible and influential higher education association, representing presidents of U.S. accredited, degree-granting institutions, which include two- and four-year colleges, private and public universities, and nonprofit and for-profit entities. ACE convenes representatives from all sectors to collectively tackle the toughest higher education challenges, with a focus on improving access and preparing every student to succeed.American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) – A nonprofit organization and leading proponent for community colleges, representing 1,200 two-year, associate degree-granting institutions and more than 13 million students, as well as a growing number of international members.
Association of American Universities (AAU) – A nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. AAU focuses on issues important to research-intensive universities, such as funding for research, research policy issues, and graduate and undergraduate education.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact:Tina@usresistnews.org
Photo By: Nathan Dumlao
How 3D Printed Guns Has Become a Threat to Public Safety
Brief #46—Gun Policy
Policy Summary
Cody Wilson produced blueprints online that gave instructions on how to produce a gun using only a 3D printer. Shortly after the blueprints were posted, the State Department requested Wilson take them down. This prompted a lawsuit by Wilson in which he claimed the demand for the removal of the blueprints was an infringement on free speech. The case was settled by the administration on June 29th which included free disbursement of the instructions and awarded Wilson $40,000 for legal fees.
In the age of rapidly advancing technology, the Trump administration’s recent settlement foreshadows a lack of modernization to policies that have been in effect since Reagan that could be disastrous for the future of gun control. The increasing commonality of 3D printers provides the opportunity for anyone who owns one to produce their own gun comprised of plastic. Not only does this give potential to almost unlimited access to firearms, it also presents a security problem as they can be virtually undetectable in X-rays and metal detectors.
Analysis
This ruling in the Wilson case seems to be undermining The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 which aimed to eliminate firearms with certain features that cause them to be undetectable by restricting their production, possession, and transportation. While the bill has been renewed until 2023, NRA lobbyists blocked more technologically advanced provisions to be added.
The ruling in the Wilson case indicates the Trump administration will do very little to update the bill to modern technological threats such as requiring metal components in 3D printed guns or restrict the printing of guns at all. By ruling in favor of Wilson, the administration signaled its allegiance with gun ownership, rather than a commitment to prohibiting the possible mass distribution of downloadable guns. Wilson said he will release the blueprints available to download to produce guns, including the AR-15, August 1st. With little to no regulation, this era of ever-evolving technologies proves to be a new threat to public safety.
Engagement Resources
March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo By rawpixel
Part 2: Update of Investigation Activities
This is the second half of our re-cap series covering developments in the ongoing Russian election interference investigation since early May. Next week we’ll cover the Helsinki Summit and what it means for the investigation moving forward.
June began in familiar fashion with the president taking to twitter to defend himself from various allegations. Former CIA Director John Brennan appeared on MSNBC on June 1st. “I think that he is afraid of the President of Russia,” Brennan stated in the interview, adding that “The Russians could have something on him personally that they could always roll out to make his life more difficult.” Brennan believes the Russians “have had long experience with Mr. Trump,” Trump would later be criticized after the Helsinki summit in July for his warm attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin (more on this next post).
The president defended himself on twitter the following day tweeting that “John Brennan, no single figure in American history has done more to discredit the intelligence community than this liar,” and speaking of the investigation more broadly he tweeted “$17 million spent, it’s a scam investigation. Americans are being worked. We know there was Russian collusion, with Russians and the Democrats.” The President has not been shy about trying to discredit the Mueller investigations. He took to twitter the day before, citing an A.P. report that “the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast.” In May, the President used twitter to coin the hashtag #spygate in reference to what he claims was an effort by the Obama administration to plant spies within the Trump campaign in a purported effort to derail his presidential campaign. This, in conjunction with repeated insistence that the Russians colluded not with his campaign, but with the Democrats to undermine his election bid would suggest a strategy on the part of the President to divert public attention or “flip-flop” the blame onto Democrats.
In another bizarre twitter episode on June 4th, President Trump asserted his authority to pardon himself. “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” This tweet came on the heels of Rudy Giuliani’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week” in which he suggested that Trump likely does have the ability to do this. However, it should be noted that Giuliani also said the president “has no intention of pardoning himself,” and called such a move “unthinkable.”
Paul Manafort, Trump’s former Campaign Manager,had additional charges pressed against him by Special counsel Mueller’s grand jury. Manafort is charged with obstruction of justice in that he allegedly conspired to “sway the testimony of two potential witnesses who might offer evidence against Manafort.” Based on these charges, Judge Amy Berman Jackson revoked his bail and ordered that he remain in jail prior to his trail. Manafort had originally posted $10 million bond and was placed under house arrest awaiting trial for money laundering and other charges. Both president Trump and Rudy Giuliani wasted no time in defending Manafort. Trump tweeted “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all the others? Very unfair!”
Giuliani disagreed with the decision. “I don’t understand the justification for putting him in jail,” Giuliani told NY Daily News, “You put a guy in jail if he’s trying to kill a witness, not just talking to witnesses.” He then re-asserted what he’d said back in May, calling for an investigation into Mueller’s investigation. “It’s time for Justice to investigate the investigators.” What’s more, Giuliani insinuated the President may pardon Manafort if he is convicted. “When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.”Giuliani later walked back his comments telling ABC that “[Trump] is not considering [pardoning Manafort] and he will not even entertainthinking about it until after the investigation has been completed.” From the beginning, Giuliani has taken a hostile stance to the Mueller investigation.
The Justice Department Inspector General Report was released in mid-June, with significant impact. Analysis of the report provides plenty of incendiary material for both sides as each tries to discredit the other. The Report concluded that “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice.” However, the report did find that individuals within the FBI harboured an anti-Trump bias, chiefly through the text message exchanges between attorney Lisa Page and agent Peter Strzok. Rudy Giuliani told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “Strzok should be in jail by the end of next week.” He also said that Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Sessions “should suspend [Mueller’s] investigation, throw out all the people that have been involved in the phony Trump investigation, and bring in honest FBI agents from the New York office, who I can trust implicitly.” Page has since retired, and Strzok has been fired. Strzok, however, would like to tell his story.
House Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) invited Strzok to appear before the committee. Trump later tweeted that “The hearing of Peter Strzok and the other hating frauds at the FBI & DOJ should be shown to the public on live television, not a closed door hearing that nobody will see. We should expose these people for what they are – there should be total transparency!” Strzok did testify before the house committee on July 12th. He told the committee “Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: Not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,”
Additionally, House Intelligence Committee former Chairman Devin Nunes sent additional demands to the Justice Department requesting information on “contacts” between FBI intelligence sources and Trump campaign associates. Nunes has been highly critical of the investigation since its inception. Nunes, along with Trey Gowdy (R-SC)and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) originally demanded unredacted copies of written conversations between former FBI director James Comey and President Trump. A federal judge ordered these remain secret in February. The Justice Department has since maintained that it has complied with Nunes’ requests to the extent that is legally permissible.
It would seem that the fallout from the IG report has only widened the gulf between supporters and opponents of the investigations. Each side has dug in further, with Rudy Giuliani leading the charge against Mueller.
Trump Appears Docile and Contradictory in Putin Summit
Brief #36—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
Last Monday, following a scornful conference with EU leaders, President Trump met with President Putin in Helsinki for a two hour meeting followed by a joint press conference. The meeting was held privately with no notes taken and two interpreters as the only witnesses of what was discussed between the two leaders. The idea for a summit was conceived last March, when Trump called Putin to congratulate him for his successful re-election, against the recommendations of his national security advisers. The summit was held in the midst of a pair of significant advancements against Russian intelligence operations, with 12 Russian intelligence agents being indicted for their involvement in a plan to hack into the emails of democratic campaign officials, and an alleged Russian spy being arrested following involvement with the Republican party and pro-gun organizations. Documents revealed that the intelligence agents first attempted to breach Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s email servers the day that Trump publicly suggested they do so
In the face of these developments, Trump held a completely different take on Russian involvement in American affairs. Trump stated that US intelligence officials “think its Russia” but Putin had told him that it is not, concluding “I don’t see any reason why it would be”. While this is not necessarily a major departure from previous statements he has made on the matter, hearing this from our President as he met with one of our biggest political rivals was enough to provoke significant domestic objection, even among GOP allies. House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Trump “must appreciate that Russia is not our ally”. John McCain called it a “disgraceful performance”. The next day Trump read a statement explaining that he “accepts the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place” but it “could be other people also”. “A lot of people out there”, the President added. Trump also clarified that when he said that he didn’t “see any reason why it would be” Russia who interfered with the 2016 election, he actually meant he didn’t “see any reason why it wouldn’t be”.
For the amount of controversy generated by the summit, there was a noticeable lack of progress on tangible issues. Crimea was barely mentioned, and Trump seemed satisfied with Putin declaring the Syrian war over. Putin said that the two had made an agreement to hold talks in the future on the extension of the START treaty once Russia had a chance to examine whether the US was compliant in the historic arms reduction pact.
Analysis
For a man who so clearly dislikes foreign excursions, one would think President Trump would work harder to ensure that they were worthwhile for American interests. Instead, he seems to believe these summits are simply about the handshakes and photo-ops. We have no idea what was discussed during the two hours that Trump and Putin met in private, but it must not have been anything very promising considering the vagueness of the press conference. By dismissing Russian aggression only to unconvincingly walk his statements back the next day, Trump doesn’t even present himself as capable as a foreign asset. In times like this all we can do is be thankful when his blunders do not hold major consequences. Trump didn’t concede Crimea to Russia or do anything else to alarm European allies. It is naive to expect Trump to hold Putin accountable for anything. Even in the small possibility that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, Putin compliments him too much to ever be seen as an enemy. Perhaps as a country we will need to weather the international embarrassments until the next election, as long as it means no major wars or concessions of human rights.
Resistance Resources
- Human Rights Watch – An international human rights organization which has worked to support Crimean autonomy against Russian aggression.
- Amnesty International – A longstanding human rights organization which led protests in Helsinki against both the policies of Trump and Putin.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley. Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
DeVos’ Strengthening of School-to-Prison Pipelines
Brief #23—Education
Policy Summary
Discriminatory policies that harm and deny students of color equal opportunities for quality instruction time at school violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance. According to Civil Rights Data Collection, students of color across the U.S. are disproportionately suspended and expelled for the most minor or subjective offenses, such as “looking disrespectful” or “disrupting class” by burping. Innocuous behaviors like these are often labeled as hostile offenses, placing students at higher risk for suspension and gradually pushing them out of the school system.
The Department of Education (DOE) under Betsy DeVos has been swiftly closing more than 1,200 cases of civil rights violations in school districts and universities across the country. While the 12 regional bureaus under Obama required approval from headquarters to settle or dismiss a case, DeVos has essentially de-centralized the decision-making process and scaled back “compliance review” – a type of civil rights investigation that looks at issues through a systemic lens often prompted by data, news reports or direct complaints by students and parents. While 51% of cases that took more than 180 days culminated in civil rights violations or corrective changes under the Obama administration, that rate has now dropped to 35%. For instance, the DOE closed a 2015 Desoto County School District case regarding the school’s discriminatory disciplinary practices which used corporal punishment on 852 students – more than half of whom were Black. DOE claimed that the Title VI complaint was closed due to insufficient evidence. However, there was ongoing investigation and data revealing that Black students in the county accounted for 55% of suspensions/expulsions and over 60% of referrals to law enforcement by the schools, despite constituting only 35% of district enrollment.
Furthermore, complaints regarding students with limited English language proficiency that were previously upheld under the Obama administration dropped from 70% to 52%; students with disabilities – from 45% to 34%; sexual harassment/violence – from 41% to 31%; racial harassment – from 31% to 21%. Under DeVos, a case processing manual has given investigators greater discretion to dismiss complaints; for example, complaints can be dismissed if they appear to hold “unreasonable” burden. DeVos has also barred complainants from appealing the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) decisions and plans to shrink its staff from 569 to 529, according to its 2019 budget proposal. Under federal law, OCR is responsible for ensuring equal access to education and investigating allegations of discrimination in schools and colleges. Families and students can file complaints with OCR. If violations are substantiated, OCR negotiates a settlement or prescribes corrective changes, which it sometimes oversees. It receives more than 10,000 complaints annually and has a target of resolving 80% of them within six months. LEARN MORE
Fortunately, ProPublica has been analyzing data on more than 40,000 civil rights cases and has made accessible the status of all pending and prior cases within the last three years on its website. To date, it has added 220 cases (most were resolved in a two-week period in December 2017) omitted from the DOE’s recent data. Search results are organized by the type of discrimination issue and provide general details on the status of each complaint. The data is retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act on DOE’s website. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Elizabeth Hill, a DOE spokeswoman, said that the new DeVos approach has “restored the role of OCR investigators as neutral fact-finders,” providing closure for both students and institutions. However, the rapid changes and rising dismissal of complaints without full and rigorous investigations reveal the current DOE’s changing priorities. While OCR previously made systematic and time-consuming investigations under Obama, the Trump administration is concentrating solely on individual complaints that can be quickly resolved and attempting to clear a backlog of potentially expansive cases. This strategy is a large shift away from compliance reviews and the exploration of systemic issues rooted in state-sanctioned segregation that marked schools, such as DeSoto County, for decades after Brown v. Board of Education. The unfortunate reality is that massive resistance strategies to past federal orders of school integration remain today. We see this in the fact that, in DeSoto County, there has never been a Black superintendent or member of the elected school board although Black students constitute over a third of the school district’s population.
School codes of discipline that include zero tolerance policies and vague, subjective, and discretionary language drive these discipline disparities. The lack of clarity and the high rates of disparities between groups suggest that typical, developmental behaviors of Black students are pre-emptively defined as violations while similar behaviors by White students are not. In a society so shaped by race and gender, no one is immune to experiencing the biases of our times. Educators are people, and our perceptions of differences can sometimes be based on involuntary ideas that derive from latent stereotypes about race, gender, sexuality, and other aspects of identity. Unlearning ingrained societal biases and negative perceptions about other groups means a commitment to a lifelong learning process.
Research shows that harsh and exclusionary discipline foster school-to-prison pipelines by increasing the risk that students will fall behind in academics, drop out or become involved in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. School pushout is particularly gendered and racialized for young Black girls. The stereotype of Black children as unruly, incorrigible or inherently ungovernable has affected society’s conscious and unconscious responses to Black girls who are almost four times more likely to be incarcerated than White girls, and the rate is dangerously increasing today. Once pushed out, Black girls are the most vulnerable to become victims of child sex trafficking. Students with disabilities and other marginalized groups are also disciplined severely at the intersection of their identities (e.g. race and disability). To say the least, the collateral consequences are devastating for affected students, and they ultimately make us less safe and more inequitable as a society.
Engagement Resources
- National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls – A national coalition of women and girls connecting their criminal justice transformation work and sharing their expertise as directly affected individuals to create meaningful change in public opinion and policy making (#FreeHer).
- Educators for Justice – White leaders committed to dismantling systems of oppression in schools through reading groups, convenings, personal empowerment, and collective action.
- Antiracist White Educators Group – Affinity group for white educators seeking a safe space to examine and discuss race and whiteness; to critically reflect on their racial identities, understandings and actions around race; and to support each other in confronting and working to undo racism in our schools, in our lives and the larger world.
- NAACP School to Prison Pipeline – NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) partners with community organizations to work on groundbreaking programs and advocacy efforts aimed at returning the emphasis to education instead of exclusion and incarceration.
- ACLU Racial Justice Program – ACLU’s education work centers on disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline through strategic litigation and advocacy campaigns.
- The National Coalition on School Diversity – Network of national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to increase support for government initiatives that promote diversity in schools.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org
Courts Challenge Trump’s Separation of Immigrant Parents and Children
Brief #47—Immigration
Policy Summary
In reaction to the Trump Administration separating families at the border there has been a lot of responses, more often than not, questioning the morality and effectiveness of the practice. On June 26, 17 states (including California and New York) sued the Trump Administration in attempts to get them to reunite families. The court ruled children can only be separated if the adults accompanying them appear to pose an immediate threat to their safety and that if families are separated, adults may not be deported from the US without their children. However, the Trump Administration had successfully separated many families and scattered children across the country to foster care or shelters with no concrete plans of reunification and some had even failed to keep track of which children belonged to which parents. There are currently nearly 3,000 children in federal custody. Three-Thousand. And of the roughly 100 children under the age of 5, 19 of those parents have been deported, despite the court’s ruling.
Thus, the court ordered US immigration agents to stop separating families at the border and that all children under the age of 5 were supposed to be reunited with their families by July 10 and all children held in federal custody must be reunited by July 26. The Trump Administration has continued to bargain for more time due to challenges they claim they are facing with reuniting families. Some families are now thousands of miles apart, and with lost records of which child belongs to which parent, they are insisting on taking time-costly measures to ensure the correct familial relationships are identified. The government does not wish to delay reunifications, but they also want to make sure that in rushing to reunite families they do not accidentally release any child to adults that wish to exploit them and want to ensure their safety as well. The government also feared that with this court order to reunite families would come with mass deportations. So, to further ensure the safety of families upon reunification, on July 16, the court ordered the halt of deportation of families upon reunification. Deportations are to be stalled for at least a week to provide proper time for families to decide whether they would like to continue the process and stay in the US or leave. Though, despite Trump’s pleas for extra time, Judge Sabraw has demanded Trump move faster in reuniting children with their parents.
There are some complications and loopholes that leave some children potentially ineligible for release such as those who did not cross the border with their parents, parents who are serving criminal sentences, parents with a background of criminal histories, in particular child abuse and therefore deemed unfit. Lastly, some parents were simply deported, thus making the process even more difficult.
Analysis
The Trump Administration’s separation of families has left a “gaping wound in our country” and can only be healed by morally and respectfully adhering to the nation’s commitment to individual rights. Trump is a firm believer in hard borders and remaining tough on immigration, claiming “without borders, you do not have a country.” His response to some earlier questioning about missing his first court appointed reunification deadline was to call for individuals to come to the US legally and there will be no issues. While on the surface, that may seem simple, there are specific cases such as asylum seekers and refugees who may not have as clear cut of a path to safety and thus must resort to unconventional migration.
In some cases, it is fair to confirm familial relationships so that unaccompanied children are not put in precarious situations, but there were steps that could and should have been taken early on to ensure familial connections were secure and confirmed. In the Executive Order issued June 26, there were no steps laid on for reuniting families, thus making it relatively easier for the Trump Administration to attempt to bargain. But, as there has been a universal plea for the end of separating families, it is crucial for society to continue pushing for social justice.
Resistance Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
Photo By Fancycrave
Trump Shames NATO Leaders in Brussels
Brief #36—Foreign Policy
Policy
Trump met with NATO leaders in Brussels on July 11th, marking the beginning of a week-long trip which would later include a visit to Britain and a summit with President Putin in Finland. “I have NATO, I have the UK, which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all. Who would think? Who would think?” Trump commented upon departing from the White House. The NATO summit was just as contentious as his remarks foreshadowed. Trump continued his campaign of abuse against fellow NATO leaders over a perceived lack of commitment to military spending, referring to them as “delinquent” for not yet reaching the goal set in 2014 to reach 2% of GDP spending for defense. He went as far as to ask for 4% defense spending from all NATO nations. Trump’s ire was focused primarily on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and accused the country of being “totally controlled by Russia”. The source of this claim is a $10 billion pipeline project from Russian energy giant Gazprom which has now been confirmed to pass through German territory. Despite the rhetoric, Trump still agreed to sign onto a joint statement reaffirming previous goals and commitments. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was wholly non-confrontational in the face of Trump’s insults, agreeing that more military spending was indeed necessary.
Analysis
The accepted implication of Trump’s remarks is that the failure of European allies to divert a sufficient amount of spending towards defense creates an unnecessary burden for the United States to overspend. Trump presents the United States as a country suffering to defend its allies. Of course, the Trump administration has no real incentive to ever reduce defense spending. Increasing our military arsenal has been a frequent talking point, and Congress has been working on passing a massive bipartisan spending increase. The United States is by far the largest arms dealer in the world and convincing allies to increase spending is a top priority for domestic business interests.
Trump’s attitude towards NATO threatens to undermine a seventy-five year old alliance between America and its European allies that has helped preserve peace and stability throughout Europe since the end of World War II. Article V of the NATO Agreement calls for all NATO countries to come to the defense of countries in the alliance when they are attacked. This article was invoked after 9/11 when America’s European allies rushed in to provide help to the US. European members of NATO have fought side by side with the US in countries like Bosnia and Afghanistan. It is impossible to put a price on what NATO has contributed to peace and stability in much of the world. All this is in play now that Trump is breaking NATO down into a business transaction of who pays for what.
Resistance Resources
- World Beyond War – An organization dedicated to reducing militarization around the world
- Amnesty International – A longstanding human rights organization which has led protests in Europe opposing Trump’s policies over the past two weeks.
Learn More: Here is the joint statement signed by all NATO representatives
This Brief was authored by Colin Shanley Colin@usresistnews.org
SCOTUS Nominee Could Be A Scorcher for the Environment
Brief #36—Environment
Summary
On June 27th Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court announced his retirement, and on July 9th President Donald Trump announced his candidate for replacement. Trump’s pick, former Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Brett Kavanaugh, has an unkind track record towards environmental regulations. While serving as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh notoriously promoted industry over the environment, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Judge Kavanaugh frequently heard cases regarding the Environmental Protection Agency, and he, was rarely an advocate of the organization, often debating that Congress’s authority should supersede that of the Agency’s. This also summarizes Kavanaugh’s general political philosophy—that Congress should wield more power than that of an agency–but Congress has not contributed to the passage of a major environmental law since the Clean Air Act of 1990. More still, Kavanaugh has dissented multiple times on matters relating to The Clean Air Act, favoring industry regulation over the EPA’s.
Analysis
Kavanaugh’s proposed appointment comes at a time when matters of the environment have become more visible to communities around the country, as there have never been so many Americans who believe that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. In Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois, the gas station empire belonging to Vice President Pence’s family has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in oil spill cleanups across the three states. And after 4 years, the town of Flint, Michigan still does not have clean water. And in Pennsylvania, 2 protesters with the group “Mama Bear Brigade” were arrested for demonstrating the construction of a pipeline project that would close a local elementary school. Each of these incidents lay the groundwork for cases that may one day appear before the Supreme Court, one in which Kavanaugh might one day serve.
Should an anti-environment court be in the works, states and local governments will need to do more to prevent judicial oversight. So perhaps a pinch of optimism can be sprinkled over the decision of the hyper-industrial city of Pueblo, Colorado to become more green, and for the fact that California met its 2020 emissions goal 2 years ahead of schedule. In the meantime, let’s keep our eyes on the outcome of the lawsuit filed by former-allies of David Schnare, who had sued climate scientists over their work. And hope Kavanaugh reads The Onion if he takes the bench.
Engagement Resources:
- Friends of the Earth – A non-profit activist group that organizes activists to fight against environmental injustices. Their petitions and campaigns have had large impacts on corporate responsibility and legal outcomes.
- Judging the Environment – a non-profit watchgroup which tracks federal judicial nominations of supreme courts.
This brief was compiled by Zoe Stricker. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact zoe@USResistnews.org.