JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Russian-Ukraine War: Where are We Now?
Brief #96 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
The last few weeks have seen two new wars spring up in our increasingly volatile international arena.
Congressional Support Lapses in the Fight Against Fentanyl
Policy Brief #166 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
Eight states reported increased death rates from nine percent to twenty one percent last year.
Gig Economy Insights: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Future of Freelancing
Policy Brief #56 – Economic
by Inijah Quadri
In the age of digital transformation, the gig economy has emerged as a significant paradigm shift. Platforms like Uber, Airbnb, Upwork, and Fiverr have become the bridges connecting freelancers with opportunities, altering the traditional employment landscape.
An Analysis Of The Gag Orders In Criminal Cases Against Former President Trump
Brief #213 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
In the months leading up to the trial, the court issued Trump a limited gag order in order to try and limit some of his inflammatory comments while allowing him to still speak on public issues.
The Candidacies of Robert Kennedy Jr and Cornell West
Brief #103 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by William Borque
Kennedy’s views are largely conspiratorial, with many arguing that he is running for President simply to attempt relevance.
Examining Competitive US House Races in the West
Brief #102 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
The small size of the Republican majority leaves Democrats with a path to re-take the House majority.
The Nightmare Started at 7 in the Morning
Brief #95 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Yelena Korshunov
The siblings were among the more than 150 kidnapped in Gaza in recent days. Ilan and Mirit Regev, the parents of Itai and Mia, recreate the moments of horror…
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 2: Detecting the AI in Campaign Advertising
Brief #99 – Technology Policy Brief
by Steve Piazza
Campaign ads are not in and of themselves policy, but their message reflects a candidate’s or party’s policy of sorts, namely on how far it is willing to go to get what it wants.
The Hamas October 7th Terrorist Incursion Into Israel: A Survivor’s Account
Brief #94 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ester Avisror
Young women and men faced the raw alarm of death, as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists arrived in vans and motorcycles, firing bullets which consumed over 250 people in unending horror.
Why The Religious Liberty Argument Threatens Civil Rights And Anti – Discrimination Statutes
Why The Religious Liberty Argument Threatens Civil Rights And Anti – Discrimination Statutes
Civil Rights Policy Brief #210 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 28, 2023
Photo taken from: americanprogress.org
__________________________________
On June 30, 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis. That case began when the owner of a graphic design business in Colorado considered expanding her business to include wedding website design. She had concerns, because of her religious beliefs and opposition to same – sex marriages, that she would be compelled to create a wedding website for a same – sex couple. The Supreme Court decided in a 6 – 3 decision based on free speech grounds that “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
In the aftermath of the decision, a number of notable incidents occurred indicating that the decision was being interpreted in an extreme manner. In July in Traverse City Michigan Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab announced on Facebook “If a human identifies as anything other than man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon. Period.” In subsequent interviews with the owner, she clarified that she was opposed to the TQ+ of the LGBQT+ acronym and claimed she had a right refuse service to those persons. The T stands for transgender persons and Q stands for those who identify as queer. The + is an all – encompassing symbol for those who identify as intersex, asexual, pansexual, two – spirit or omnisexual.
In Texas, McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit in 2019 after being warned by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct for her refusal to perform same – sex marriages in the state. Her rationale is that she is being unfairly punished for her religious beliefs and opposition to same – sex marriages. Her case was subsequently dismissed after reaching a lower appeals court tribunal. But with the recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to consider whether her lawsuit should be revived. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
These two incidents and a number of other lower court cases illustrate the danger and hatred that LGBQT+ people face in the ongoing discrimination because of religious liberty debate. The 303 decision carved out a free speech exception but it was clear that the motivation behind the case was in using a person’s religious beliefs as justification to refuse to serve other persons in the marketplace because of their opposition to the lifestyle choice of the other persons.
But the danger and harm that appears to be emerging may not be just against the LGBQT+ community. The rationale of the 303 decision and the justification often put forth by those who are claiming that their religious liberty is being infringed is that they are being forced to do something against their religious beliefs. In the 303 case the reasoning was that the graphic designer was being forced to say words or express views in her own designs that went against her religious beliefs. In other cases, the rationale is that by providing a service or selling a product to a couple living their lifestyle choice means that the religious people endorse or support same sex marriage.
But now, legal scholars are wondering if this refusal to serve another person could be extended to matters outside LGBQT+ issues. In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the 303 case, she listed numerous examples where a person might decide to refuse someone service because of their religious beliefs. She listed a photographer refusing to take professional head shots of a woman because he might not believe women should work outside the home. Or that a vendor could refuse service of any item or service to an interracial couple because of religious beliefs against people of different races mixing or even marrying. Anti – miscegenation laws were once justified on religious grounds with reasoning as ignorant as “because the Bible was against races mixing.” And during the 1960’s, a reliance on religious beliefs and religion was once used as the reason to refuse to support passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the 303 case and its rationale becomes more accepted and widespread than it is likely that certain civil rights and anti – discrimination statutes can be nullified and given minimal effect if a person can simply claim religious liberty for any law they do not want to follow. This is a very dangerous road to be going down but that seems to be the effect that the 303 decision is having. Over one hundred and forty years ago in the 1879 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States the Court recognized this problem and Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote
“Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”
It is unfortunate that today’s Supreme Court has failed to follow this legal principle, opting instead to give a preferred position to religious beliefs over the rule of law. No person should be deprived of their civil rights by a hairdresser or even a judge simply because of the religious beliefs of those people. Maybe one day the Supreme Court will revisit these discrimination in the name of religious liberty cases and re-adopt the legal principle from the Reynolds case, lest the LGBQT+ community and other vulnerable communities be deprived of the protections of civil rights and anti – discrimination statutes and their basic civil rights. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Constitution Center – analysis of the 303 decision and discussion about free speech, expressive conduct and discrimination.
- The First Amendment Encyclopedia – a history and explanation of the Supreme Court’s 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision.
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 rodwood@email.com.
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
Health & Gender Policy Brief #81 | By: Geoffrey Small | July 28, 2023
Photo taken from: pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com
__________________________________
On July 13th, the FDA approved nonprescription birth control pills for use in the United States. Opill, generically referred to as norgestrel, is a progestin-only oral contraceptive that will be available for purchase at drug stores, grocery stores, convenience stores, and online. Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, stated that the approval “marks the first time a nonprescription daily oral contraceptive will be an available option for millions of people in the United States.” HRA Pharma, recently acquired by Perrigo Company plc, applied for norgestrel to be switched to non-prescription after it met FDA requirements with studies that showed the drug can be “used by consumers safely and effectively, relying only on the nonprescription drug labeling without any assistance from a health care professional.” The approval is a significant victory for reproductive rights, as recent Supreme Court rulings have stripped U.S. citizens of universal access to abortions. However, experts are wary of the legal challenges that may follow the FDA approval. Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions may help the public understand the future of nonprescription birth control.
Policy Analysis
According to the FDA, “Almost half of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended. Unintended pregnancies have been linked to negative maternal and perinatal outcomes, including reduced likelihood of receiving early prenatal care and increased risk of preterm delivery, with associated adverse neonatal, developmental and child health outcomes.” Despite this data, reproductive rights have been under siege since the recent infamous Supreme Court ruling that dismantled Roe v. Wade and left the legality of abortion procedures to be determined by the states.
Many experts also point to the recent challenges of mifepristone, an abortion pill, that could set a precedent for nonprescription birth control. On April 21st, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court decision to ban the FDA-approved drug while lawsuits are challenging the agency’s recent sanctioning of ordering abortion medication online. The ruling doesn’t mean the decision is final. The justices left the decision to ban mifepristone in the hands of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals. Justice Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas U.S. District Judge appointed by the Trump Administration, issued a national ban on April 7th arguing that the approval of the drug 23 years ago was not properly executed. However, Judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington issued a contrary ruling to expand the use of mifepristone minutes after Kacsmaryk’s ruling. Also, The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially limited Kacsmaryk’s decision, as the statute of limitations to challenge the approval passed long ago. Legal experts speculate that the mifepristone decision will almost certainly end back up in the Supreme Court during the next term, because the 5th Circuit still needs to inevitably rule on the lawsuits challenging the drug.
Lawsuits, backed by anti-reproductive rights groups, for the recent FDA-approval of nonprescription birth control are all but certain to make their way through the federal courts. The mifepristone legal battle is not over and may help determine legal precedents for over-the-counter drugs, like Opill. Organizations like the ACLU are challenging abortion abolitionist legal efforts in the United States. Donating to their organization can help protect reproductive rights from these challenges.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.aclu.org
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
Foreign Policy Brief #84 | By: Abran C | July 27, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.ft.com/
__________________________________
Drone strikes
Russian authorities have accused Ukraine of launching a drone attack on Moscow early Monday that saw one of the aircraft fall near the Russian Defense Ministry’s headquarters. This is another attack in what has become a series of drone attacks and bombings in the Russian capital since the beginning of the war. Russia later launched its sixth air attack on Ukraine’s capital this month, but all incoming drones were shot down and reports indicated no damage or casualties. The recent attack on Kyiv, came the day after Russia warned of “tough retaliatory measures” for the attempted drone strike in Moscow. Russian airstrikes also severely damaged dozens of Ukrainian architectural landmarks, including a historic Orthodox cathedral in the southern city of Odessa, sparking outrage and prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to vow retaliation.
Russia-Belarus-Poland
With the war in Ukraine came the strengthening of ties among some allies and increase in distrust among rival states. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned Poland that any attack on Belarus will be considered an attack on Russia, in a direct threat to the NATO ally. Putin made such threats in response to Warsaw’s decision this week to station military units to the east of the country, closer to the Belarusian border. Poland stationed troops closer to its border in response to thousands of Wagner mercenary troops holding military exercises with Belarusian troops near the Polish border. Putin though, claimed, “that Poland appeared to have interests in retaking eastern territories it lost to former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin, including “a good chunk of Ukraine … to take back the historic lands… it’s well known that they dream of Belarusian lands as well.” Adding that Moscow would treat any aggression against Belarus with all means at its disposal.
Russia-Ukraine grain deal
Russia announced last week that it was suspending its participation in a deal that allowed the export of Ukrainian grain to the rest of the world, once again raising fears over global food supplies and upending a rare diplomatic breakthrough since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Wheat prices have risen more than 14% since last week, and corn prices are up more than 10%. Russia has for some time complained that it is being prevented from adequately exporting its own goods under sanction, while Ukraine is able to ship grain out of the country, and Russian foreign minister Peskov cited that objection as the reason for pulling out of the deal. The UN Chief, Antonio Guterres, on Monday, urged Russia to resume the internationally brokered deal so that grain could be shipped from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, saying that otherwise, the world’s most vulnerable among the hungry will suffer the worst consequences.
Engagement Resources
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #87 | By: Ian Milden | July 25, 2023
Photo taken from: www.newsnationnow.com
__________________________________
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R-ND) recently launched a Presidential Campaign, which he is largely funding through his personal fortune. The RNC’s requirements to get on the debate stage require candidates to demonstrate a degree of grassroots support though donors and polling. Burgum is employing tactics that might not be legal in order to reach the donor threshold. This Brief will discuss those tactics, why they might be illegal, and what the government should do about it.
Analysis
In nearly every election cycle, longshot candidates launch campaigns for President. The campaign for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination is no different. With the increasing number of candidates, the national parties have installed requirements in recent cycles in order for candidates to participate in debates. While the debates themselves are not always impactful, the difference between making the debate stage and being left off is still considered a critical measure of viability for longshot candidates.
In order for a candidate to receive an invitation to participate in next month’s debate, they must have 40,000 unique donors from at least 20 states. They must also reach 1% in three national or state polls that meet the RNC’s specifications, which are not in line with modern polling criteria. Candidates will also be required to pledge to support to the eventual nominee.
While longshots have to be creative in order to meet these criteria, Governor Doug Burgum’s strategy might be illegal. Burgum, a former CEO of Great Plains Software, is using his personal fortune to send $20 gift cards to the first 50,000 donors to his campaign. While candidates have given away merchandise in exchange for donations (such as shirts, yard signs, and other memorabilia), nobody has ever given away something with a clear monetary value.
Burgum’s strategy might be illegal because it effectively makes Burgum a straw donor. A straw donor is someone who gives money to a campaign through another person as a way of circumventing campaign contribution limits. This is illegal and the Justice Department has prosecuted people for straw donor schemes. It is not completely clear if this is illegal as there are a few differences from the traditional straw donor schemes that the Justice Department typically prosecutes.
The first difference is that the candidate who is effectively acting as the straw donor. Candidates are not limited in the amount of money that they can give their own campaign. Typical straw donor schemes are usually attempts to circumvent campaign contribution limits (both on dollar amounts and foreign nationals), and there is no limit on candidates giving themselves money. The second difference is that most straw donor schemes are secret attempts at circumventing campaign finance laws. Burgum is doing this transparently and not asking people for contributions that would exceed existing campaign finance limits.
Is Burgum’s Strategy Illegal?
To be honest, I don’t know. I don’t know if those differences matter enough in the eyes of the law. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is the agency that would usually determine whether Burgum’s strategy is legal or not. As I have written in a previous brief, the FEC is not a very functional regulator. This allows campaigns to try lots of different strategies and see if they work. If they happen to violate existing campaign finance rules, the FEC might fine the campaign in a few years for an amount that is not substantial for a billionaire like Burgum. This is not effective enforcement of campaign finance law.
There is a simple solution that might work better for the public. The Justice Department has a unit that prosecutes people for federal campaign finance offenses. Since the FEC is dysfunctional, it would be in the best interests of the public if the Justice Department could determine whether new strategies like the one Burgum is using with gift cards for donations are legal or not. If the Justice Department thinks that the strategy is illegal, it can inform Burgum’s campaign and tell it to stop rather than having to invest resources in an investigation and potential prosecution. If the strategy is legal, the Justice Department can put out a statement saying so. The Justice Department has taken this approach on other legal areas such as helping businesses comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While this approach would further harm the authority of the FEC, the FEC can only have its authority restored by a complete overhaul, which requires Congress to act on. The Justice Department should only take on this responsibility temporarily for time-sensitive matters until Congress overhauls the FEC.
Engagement Resources
- For more about the Federal Election Commission and how it works contact https://www.fec.gov
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #209 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 20, 2023
Background photo taken from: prospect.org
__________________________________
On June 29, 2023 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College. That case held that affirmative action policies used in college admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The crux of the argument being made by the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) group was that the affirmative action policies discriminated against minority Asian – American students when race was being used as a factor for admission. They argue that this discrimination results in many qualified Asian – American students being rejected from Harvard solely because of their race. Their reasoning starts with the premise that many Asian – Americans are qualified and get accepted in great numbers. They then assert that colleges who have already accepted a large number of Asian – American students conclude that there are already “enough” Asian – American students. So, those Asian – American students who did not get accepted must score significantly better to overtake a white student for a spot in the enrolling class. As a result, their convoluted and weak argument states that these Asian – American students are being harmed because the use of race for other minorities has diminished their chances to earn a spot at the college.
In the aftermath of the decision, this case was touted as a win for Asian – Americans and the discrimination they faced in college admissions. However, a significant number of Asian – American groups and individuals rejected the Supreme Court decision and are now discussing the strong possibility that genuine Asian – American interests was not the real goal. The true purpose was instead to use, manipulate and use as pawns Asian – Americans in order to have affirmative action declared unconstitutional.
Analysis
Many, many people from all walks of American life weighed in on the Students For Admissions case and commented on the merits of the case – the legal history of racial inequity in this country, the legal analysis of Chief Justice Roberts and the opposing views of the dissent. However, one thing that may have been overlooked is how the case arrived at the Supreme Court and the one nagging question that the Asian – American community is now grappling with – were they used and manipulated to bring about a result that the Asian – American community may not have wanted at this time?
The Asian – American non – profit group Asian – American Advocacy Fund did not mince words and directly addressed the issue by calling the decision “an example of ‘Asian – Americans’ being used as a “wedge” to erode civil rights.” The group went further and called the efforts by this group as a shield for a “white supremacist” agenda that used “a small number of Asian – Americans against affirmative action as pawns” in order “to divide our communities.” Even noted Hollywood and Star Trek actor George Takei commented on Twitter by calling those Asians who supported overturning affirmative action as having “Asian Sucker Syndrome (ASS).”
So, are the claims that the Asian – American community was used and manipulated by Ed Blum and his Students For Fair Admissions group valid? The signs certainly seem to point in that direction. Mr. Blum and SFFA had previously brought a case to the Supreme Court to overturn affirmative action with a white plaintiff claiming affirmative action had cost her a spot at the University of Texas but he lost the case. That prompted Ed Blum to find a more sympathetic plaintiff who could more plausibly claim discrimination and that is when he focused on finding an Asian plaintiff. However, when word got out that he wanted an Asian plaintiff to bring another case, he found that not many Asian groups supported his efforts. In fact, just a few years previously, more than 150 Asian – American groups signed an open letter supporting affirmative action policies. And it is also notable, that once Mr. Blum’s group started litigating their cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, no Asian – American students came forward to testify as having experienced discrimination in the college admissions process. And, in a National Public Radio (NPR) podcast, it was revealed that the data relied on by Mr. Blum to claim anti – Asian discrimination in Harvard’s admissions data was unsupported and that there was an overall feeling from Asian – American leaders that they felt used by Mr. Blum’s efforts. This was not a genuine effort to help Asian – Americans or to advocate for their interests as a community. Even the press release released by Mr. Blum when the decision was handed down failed to mention Asian – Americans anywhere in the text. Instead it is looking more and more likely that SFFA and Mr. Blum manipulated the small number of Asian – Americans who were opposed to affirmative action and twisted their narrative of discrimination in the U.S. to reach for another result – the end of constitutional protection for affirmative action policies, which he got. There are a number of reasons to be angry at the Students For Fair Admissions decision but for Asian – Americans the anger and disappointment is for something else – at being used to dismantle affirmative action policies that most Asian – Americans support. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Public Radio (NPR) – report on history of Ed Blum’s anti – affirmative action efforts and why Asian – Americans felt used and manipulated by his efforts.
- Asian American Advocacy Fund – statement from non – profit group condemning Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College decision.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Technology Policy Brief #92 | By: Mindy Spatt | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.reddit.com
__________________________________
If you’re considering online reviews when booking summer travel accommodations, you’re not alone. Numerous surveys show a majority of consumers rely on online reviews when choosing products, accommodations and services. Unfortunately, those reviews are not always trustworthy, as anyone who’s arrived at a well-reviewed vacation rental only to find a dump knows. The World Economic Forum estimates that 4% of online reviews worldwide are fake, with costs to consumers in the billions.
Many of those fake reviews come from paid services. According to the Harvard Business Review, there is a “large and thriving market for fake reviews.” One method the Review noted was through Facebook groups that sellers use to recruit “buyers” for their products who post positive reviews and are actually compensated for doing so. And while many platforms, including Yelp and Airbnb, take measures to root out phony reviews, sellers are finding new ways to outwit them, and making them harder for platforms to find.
Some states are fighting back, as are federal regulators. California, New York and several other states joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a suit against Roomster, an online apartment rental site, for using paid, fake reviews in its listings, which customers must pay to access.
“The FTC has seen a massive increase in online reviews in the past few years,” Serena Viswanathan, associate director of the FTC’s division of ad practices, told CBS News in an interview. “We’re all using them now to make decisions on whether to buy a product, where to stay on vacation. But unfortunately, with the rise in online reviews we have seen that bad actors can manipulate or fake reviews to deceive consumers for their own benefit.”
In announcing new efforts to rein in fakes, FTC Chair Lina Kahn called out the practice, saying “The incentives extend beyond the seller of the product itself. The platforms that host reviews may also, in some instances, benefit indirectly from fake ratings and endorsements and have financial incentives to turn a blind eye to misconduct that brings in revenue.”
Kahn’s agency is proposing rules that would penalize companies that use fake reviews to promote their products and services. The FTC’s proposal would make selling and buying phony reviews illegal, and also seek to prevent “review hijacking,” which is when real reviews are repurposed so they appear to be for a different product then originally intended. If the rules are finalized, violators would be subject to penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation. The proposed rules couldn’t come at a better time, as artificial intelligence is likely to make sham ads much easier to create and distribute.
In the meantime, how can you protect yourself?
Look for concrete wording.” A study conducted by Cornell University found that “Truthful hotel reviews…. are more likely to use concrete words relating to the hotel, like “bathroom,” “check-in” or “price.” Deceivers write more about things that set the scene, like “vacation,” “business trip” or “my husband.”
The quantity of reviews matters. If a product or service only has only a few reviews in comparison to the numbers for similar products or services, it may not be as good as it sounds. On Airbnb, beware of new accounts: Although the platform will delete or ban users after they have been caught posting fake reviews, those users will often be able to create new accounts and continue to scam consumers. Beware!
Engagement Resources
- https://fakereviewwatch.com
- How Policymakers Can Thwart the Rise of Fake Reviews by Morgan Stevens and Daniel Castro, September 12, 2022 https://datainnovation.org/2022/09/how-policymakers-can-thwart-the-rise-of-fake-reviews/
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Education Policy Brief #83 | By: Steve Piazza | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.theatlantic.com
__________________________________
Equal access to public schools in America has long been considered a tenet to maintaining its democracy. The push to desegregate them was viewed as an extension of this principle as its intention was to provide increased equitable academic opportunities and resources for students of all ethnic and economic backgrounds.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is the U.S. Supreme Court precedent for the desegregation of American public schools. Yet, even after the 1954 decision, the road to desegregation has been a slow one. In some instances, it took schools over a decade to begin complying with federal law. In the eyes of many, despite early improvement in graduation rates in African American and Hispanic students, the actuality of integration has been digressing.
School choice, and more specifically charter schools, have been thought of by some as a way to help desegregate schools. Charter schools are allowed greater local control and are not subject to the same rules and regulations as public schools. Charter schools and districts receive funding from the state and the local school system, though recent federal funding opportunities exist to assist with start-up costs.
Ordinarily, there are no demographic enrollment requirements for charter schools since by nature they are open to all students. In other words, they are not permitted to select their students to fulfill diversity goals like magnet schools can. This means that a charter school may find itself even more segregated.
Analysis
When it comes to improving schools, there is an enormous difference between educational innovation and school choice strategies like charter schools.
Education innovations range anywhere from year-round schools to technology-based lessons to experiential learning. Rather than mere rote memorization, the emphasis is on critical thinking, collaboration, and cultural awareness, attributes that colleges look for in those applying for admission. But a charter school is not so much an innovative teaching methodology as it is a process and framework that allows innovations to take place, which is part of their widespread appeal.
Since the early 1990s, charter schools have become one of the more popular choice approaches, and by 2019 3.4 million students were reported as being served by over 7500 schools with charter designation.
Despite their popularity, results on academic progress are mixed. In studies performed by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, little or no differences in performance exist between traditional and charter schools.
However, according to a study done by Education Next, from 2005 and 2017 charter school students have demonstrated higher achievement by at least a half a year, and mostly by those who are African American or in lower economic groups particularly in urban areas. Researchers caution these trends do not point directly at an ethnic or poverty level, but do suggest that either the education quality has improved or that newly enrolled students are entering possessing more proficiency.
But when it comes to the progress of desegregating schools, charter schools have actually been shown to have little success achieving diversity, and even creating more segregated environments.
Statistics demonstrate that many charter schools enroll students that tend to be predominately one ethnic group. This means that many charter schools have become racially identifiable, and thus students are isolated from others of different backgrounds.
On its own, a school being racially identifiable is not a bad thing, but if students are de facto segregated, they are missing out on interactions with other groups of children that may provide a more realistic view or representation of the larger society, not to mention the intrinsic advantages that come with cross cultural collaboration.
Researchers of a 2019 Cornell study suggest that what is needed to reverse this trend of resegregation are “policies such as weighted lotteries, controlled choice and diversity-conscious admissions algorithms to ensure that charters operate more like racially inclusive magnet schools, and federal grant competitions should reward such efforts.” It might be a surprise to some that these strategies have not already been commonplace.
Many believe the real problem in education has been one of poverty and disproportionate funding, not race, as income segregation has increased significantly since the 1990’s. That But the sum of that argument does is not entirely made up of it parts hold up though, since at present, it appears to have so much to do with race as it can’t be a coincidence that white school districts still get more than $23 billion in funding than African American districts, and this includes charter schools.
Of course, all this raises the question: is integration for integration’s sake worth it?
Some would argue no as there are instances of improved achievement at many predominantly African-American charter schools. But if those are the exception in segregated charter schools rather than the rule, and academic results show a correlation to funding, we still have more to learn about what it means to be equitable.
Engagement Resources
- For more data on charter schools provided by The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) click here.
- EdBuild advocates for equitable funding for school districts. To learn more, visit their site at https://edbuild.org/
Brown’s Promise, a new program located at the Southern Education Foundation, advocates for school integration and the fair allocation of resources: https://www.brownspromise.org/
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #86 | By: Arvind Salem | July 18, 2023
Photo taken from: www.theguardian.com
__________________________________
The Supreme Court ruled that President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is unconstitutional, stripping student loan relief for nearly 43 million borrowers: roughly 1 in 8 Americans.
Last August, President Biden unveiled a student loan forgiveness program that would cancel $10,000 for most borrowers and up to $20,000 for recipients of a Pell Grant, a form of aid for low-income families, during college.
Less than a month after the program was opened a slew of legal challenges plagued the program and forced it to shut down. Most of these claims centered around the fact that President Biden enacted this program through executive action alone, without Congressional approval. The lawsuit that ultimately led to the reversal of the student loan forgiveness plan was initiated by six GOP-led states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.
The first issue the Nebrasks and the rest of the plaintiff states faced was whether they had standing to sue. To challenge a government policy in federal court, the plaintiffs are required to show that the policy has harmed them in some way. The states argued, and the courts agreed with this argument, that Missouri would be harmed since it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), which services and holds student loans and if the debt-relief program goes into effect, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which would limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs. This argument drew criticism especially from Justice Kagan who observed that MOHELA has the ability to sue on its own behalf and could’ve sued had it wished, but chose not to.
The crux of the legal issue in the case was whether President Biden could implement this program without Congressional approval under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The HEROES act allows the Secretary of Education, and by extension the President, to “ … waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance” during a national emergency.
Biden argued that since COVID-19 was a national emergency he had authority under this act to forgive student loans. Nebraska and the other states argued that this violated Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs agency rulemaking. The Court eventually ruled that this was executive overreach and the words “waive or modify” in the statute did not grant the President the right to make such a transformative policy.
Analysis
Immediately after the decision, Biden stated that he’d pursue alternative paths to a student loan program under the Higher Education Act. The Higher Education Act, enacted in 1965, allows the secretary of education to “compromise, waive or release any right, title, claim, lien or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.” Biden has unveiled the SAVE plan (which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education). Rather than a conventional loan forgiveness plan, SAVE is an income- driven repayment plan that will phase out the current Revised Pay As You Earn plan (REPAYE). SAVE also appears to be on more solid legal footing under the Higher Education Act than the overruled plan based on the HEROES Act. The Higher Education Act has allowed the Department of Education to create and change income-driven repayment plans for years, without legal interference.
SAVE is more generous, and cheaper, than the overruled student loan forgiveness plan. SAVE could end up costing, depending on the estimate, $138 billion to $361 billion over the next 10 years. The overruled student loan forgiveness program had a one-time cost of $400 billion.
The terms of SAVE are also more generous than the overruled program. Firstly, SAVE raises the payment “floor” (under the floor income, people/families do not need to pay anything in student loans) to 225% of the federal poverty guideline, from the current 150%. SAVE also stops interest from accumulating (previously people who couldn’t cover monthly interest saw their interest increase), determines base payments on undergraduate loans on 5% of borrowers’ remaining income, not the current 10%, cutting monthly payments in half, and includes a more generous forgiveness mechanism, allowing more borrowers to have their loans forgiven earlier.
In the limbo between the implementation of the SAVE program and the end of the current loan forgiveness plan, President Biden also announced an “on ramp” period to help borrowers avoid penalties if they miss payments during the first year running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024. This would ensure that borrowers who are financially vulnerable have appropriate time to adjust to the Supreme Court decision. During this period, borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies. This may be sorely needed as The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently warned that roughly 1 in 5 student loan borrowers may struggle when payments resume.
Engagement Resources
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget – The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on important fiscal policy issues and promoting fiscal responsibility. Readers who are concerned about the potential inflationary effects of fiscal impacts of student loan forgiveness programs may be interested in the organization.
- Democracy Forward – Democracy Forward was an organization founded in the wake of the 2016 election to counteract threats to our democracy. They advocate for many reforms to improve democracy and work to use courts to enact changes that best serve the American people. One of their priorities is student loan forgiveness, so readers who wish to support efforts to defend student loan forgiveness in courts may be interested in this organization.
- Student Borrower Protection Center – Student Borrower Protection Center is a coalition of advocates and researchers that aim to fight against predatory companies and student loan abuses to protect borrowers. They also advocate for policy changes to ensure that these issues don’t occur in the future. Readers interested in supporting borrowers after this recent court decision may be interested in this organization.
- Student Debt Crisis Center – The Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC) is an organization that helps borrowers navigate the complicated student loan repayment system and engages in advocacy and the lobbying of national and state legislators. Readers who wish to help borrowers and fuel lasting change after this court decision may be interested in this organization.
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #85 | By: Abigail Hunt | July 18, 2023
Photo taken from: www.nbcnews.com
__________________________________
As the political primary season looms, the candidates of the Grand Ol’ Party are going to extreme lengths in donation solicitation in order to qualify for participation in the primaries. From the pack of right wingers competing for the chance to unseat President Biden have emerged a handful of front runners to challenge Donald Trump for the Republican nomination – namely, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, and Mike Pence, who each met the qualification bar of 40,000 unique donors. Still floundering for footing are Larry Elder, Doug Burgum, Chris Christie, Perry Johnson, and newcomers Ryan Binkley, Will Hurd, and Francis Suarez. These low-hanging fruit are doing their best to scrape together a money pile tall enough for them to reach the primary stage.
In a fundraising bid that puts the Girl Scouts to shame, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is offering $20 gift cards to the first 50,000 who donate at least $1, spending a cool $1 million to earn as little as $50,000 in donations if he makes his goal. Ramaswamy offered a 10 percent donation kickback to each donor, and that tactic may have helped, as he is set to participate in the first Republican National Committee-sponsored primary debate scheduled for August 23 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Conversely, former South Carolina Governor – and former U.N. Ambassador under Trump – Nikki Haley, 51, has brought in close to $30 million in donations. Haley’s totals are dwarfed by DeSantis, 44, whose funding – including from Super PAC support – is at $150 million and growing. Trump, as is par for the course with him, fails to provide a full accounting of his campaign funding. The latest numbers show Trump out-earned DeSantis, but the numbers for the third quarter will paint a clearer picture, as DeSantis entered the race later in the year, well into the second quarter.
The new competitors
Many of those vying for the nomination are from a new generation, the majority being in their 40s and 50s. Miami mayor and Cuban-American Francis Suarez joined the race a few weeks ago. Suarez is so far the only Hispanic candidate in the running, and he joins a younger and more diverse group than past election cycles – Tim Scott, 57; Nikki Haley, 51; Francis Suarez and Will Hurd, both 45; and Vivek Ramaswamy, the youngest in the group at 37, are POC candidates more than a decade younger than the current and former Presidents, Trump and Biden. Older and arguably more conservative than Trump is Larry Elder, 71, a POC candidate who, like Tim Scott, denies the existence of structural racism. Ramaswamy, still a long-shot, would be the first Indian and the youngest president in history were he to be elected to office.
Hurd, a former C.I.A. officer with expertise in cybersecurity, represented Texas’s 23rd Congressional District for six years and has thrown his hat into the ring. Hurd’s home district includes a long stretch of the Mexican border, and he’s a vocal critic of previous and current administrations’ dealings with the immigration crisis facing border states.
The GOP offerings for leader of the free world are typically white and male, and in the past several years, also quite old. Not to worry, conservatives. Tradition holds. Trump, 77, the eldest of the group, has the highest approval rating of the lot, despite his many well-known failings. Former Vice President Mike Pence is 64; Doug Burgum, 66, and Perry Johnson is 75. Current President Joe Biden is 80 – the oldest sitting President in U.S. history.
Ryan Binkley, 55, is CEO of an equity group and founder and pastor of Create Church in Richardson, Texas. Binkley made the decision – after vacillating on it for eight years – that his next calling was to lead the country, because what do we need more of in politics? Completely irrational judgment calls based on millennia-old outdated religious texts that subjugate women and demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line and the private funding to push that agenda! At least he’ll have Iran as a resource if he gets his way. Binkley talks about bridging divides and in the same breath praises the overturn of Roe and condemns the LGBTQ community to hell.
Speaking of zealous religiosity, Trump has been stirring the pot of evangelicals by appealing to their self-perceived moral superiority, ranting about tyranny and evil, claiming he battles against “sinister forces” in a “righteous crusade. Haley is a former U.N. Ambassador vocal with her criticism of both the current and former administrations dealing with China, pointing out that Chinese chemicals are the base ingredients for fentanyl, which killed more than 64,000 people in the U.S. just last year. Lest ye think Haley is not a religious zealot in her own right, like the rest of the GOP field, Haley supports a federal ban on abortion. She could be a voice for immigrants, women, and POC, but instead she falls in line with the rest of her ilk, increasing the likelihood that she’s essentially “a diversity hire” for the candidate pool who will fade away well before the election.
Like a shadow creeping across the land, the extreme ideals of today’s good ol’ boy party grow dark and deepen. Despite the fact that several candidates are decades younger than either President Biden or Trump, they bring the same medieval mindset.
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Education Policy Brief #82 | By: Rudolph Lurz | July 14, 2023
Photo taken from: www.ny1.com
__________________________________
In the 2000 Presidential Election, education was a central issue. Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, attacked Republican policies that created crowded classrooms with large class sizes. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, called for stronger accountability for schools and tying federal funding to standardized test scores, along with extending the use of vouchers. 77% of likely voters considered education to be a “very important” issue, and the subject was a frequent topic on the campaign trail and during debates.
Following his narrow and controversial victory in the election, President Bush followed through on his campaign promise with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was signed into law in early January 2002. Despite its promises to deliver broad improvement to struggling schools through incentive-based funding, the end result was that wealthier districts got a lot of that funding because their students (predictably) performed better on the state assessments. The assessments themselves required roughly 7 billion dollars of state funds, which lined the pockets of giant education corporations like Pearson. The obsession with standardized testing further exasperated educators and parents alike, and fortified the antiquated factory model of education, which prioritizes rote memorization and recall over critical analysis. Very few educators and policy actors believe that NCLB resulted in improvement for American education, and lawmakers who voted for its passage in 2002 quickly retreated from their previous support of the measure by the time of the next election cycle in 2004.
There is a stark contrast between education’s prominence in the 2000 election cycle and each presidential election after it. Education was not often mentioned in the 2012 and 2016 debates. It was actually a rare point of consensus between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, as Romney noted he liked some of the things Secretary Arne Duncan was doing with Race to the Top. In the first and final presidential debates of 2020, it did not even make the agenda as a topic.
Education will likely be front and center as an issue of prominence in the 2024 Presidential Election. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin made “parent choice” a central issue in his surprise victory in 2021, and Republican policy actors have made “anti-woke” education proposals a centerpiece of the GOP platform in recent months. The lessons from the 2000 Election demonstrate that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2024, education’s centrality as an issue means bad news for students and teachers nationwide.
Analysis
During the 2000 election cycle, I was a junior at Sarasota High School, the example Al Gore used to discuss overcrowded classrooms. In 2001, President George Bush touted his own education policies in a nationwide tour of classrooms, and was at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, FL when he received the news that the Twin Towers were under attack on September 11th. In more recent history, Sarasota is one of the origin points of the Moms for Liberty advocacy coalition, which seeks dominion over district curricula and library selections across the nation. One can say that my hometown has been at the center of education debates over the past quarter century.
Zeal for conservative education ideas has not equated to good education policy in recent history. NCLB was passed in the House with a vote tally of 384-45. Many of those same policy makers were left scrambling to defend their decisions when educators, parents, teachers, and students were angered by the realities of high-stakes standardized testing. Even Rick Scott, who is extremely right-leaning on education policy, rolled back standardized test requirements during his time as Florida’s governor.
Bill Clinton made teachers and nurses the heroes of his standard campaign stump speech in the 1992 campaign (you can hear it in his victory speech at around the 13-minute mark on the link). George W. Bush focused on students, with the notion that all children should be educated, and for that matter, assessed. That was a worthy goal, as districts nationwide devoted millions of dollars to educating students with special needs. Positions appeared on job boards for roles as reading coaches, ELL instructors, special education case managers, and early intervention specialists. The message was sound. Who can argue against “no child left behind”? The 384-45 tally on the passage of the NCLB Act speaks to the appeal of that message.
This latest push for “parent choice” creates a similar powerful message with broad appeal. Parents want the best for their children and feel that they should have a central role in determining the curricula they receive in public schools. Governor Youngkin’s opponent in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial campaign, Terry McAuliffe, provided a response that future Democrats would be wise to avoid. He stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
No Child Left Behind accelerated the trend of high-stakes standardized testing which has had lasting and detrimental effects on the very students it sought to help. “Parent Choice” is, in reality, a ticket to handing control of public school curricula to far-right activists who seek to chill discourse concerning any topics that they personally dislike, including those relating to uncomfortable periods in U.S. history such as slavery and segregation, along with any discussion about LGBTQ+ issues. Education will be relegated to the kind of rote memorization of facts and figures promoted by NCLB, and patriotic cheerleading will replace critical analysis of issues facing this nation, past and present. Any voices which diverge from the standard talking points from Moms for Liberty will be chilled into silence or screamed at until they are squashed.
It would be better for students, parents, and teachers if education did not have a place in the spotlight this election cycle. Since it will, progressive and centrist policy actors better find a better answer than Terry McAuliffe’s.
Instead of playing defense on parents’ role in designing curricula, they should demonstrate that priorities such as early childhood education and assistance with the exorbitant cost of childcare should be the focus. Household budgets are more compelling than conservative activists scouring district libraries to censor books they dislike. They should stand up for teachers, who are caught between the pincers of standardized testing and parents who want to stifle class discussions that require the critical thought needed to survive in an Information Age economy. If this is the Information Age, how does stripping access to books and resources help students compete?
This will not be a comfortable debate topic in the 2024 cycle, but Democrats need to find answers, and fast. They cannot sit on defense, or Moms for Liberty will be designing units for our kids instead of professional educators. The only answer is a counteroffensive. The rhetoric for that counteroffensive could come from Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory speech.
Engagement Resources
- No Child Left Behind Overview: No Child Left Behind – ED.gov
- Race to the Top Overview: Race to the Top | The White House (archives.gov)
- Moms for Liberty Recently Labeled as an Extremist Group: Moms for Liberty named ‘extremist’ by civil rights watchdog : NPR