JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
An Early Look at the 2023 Louisiana Governor’s Race
Brief #90 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Louisiana will hold what is called a “jungle primary”, where all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, compete in the same primary.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Brief #88 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
According to French maritime officials, last week six people died after a boat carrying migrants headed to Britain sank…
Do Trump’s Indictment Defenses Stand a Chance?
Brief #89 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
Off the heels of a superseding indictment adding more charges to his classified documents case, President Donald Trump faces…
The Impact of Culture Wars on Florida Universities
Brief #84 – Education Policy Brief
by Rudolph Lurz
Many elite students from both inside and outside the Sunshine State, who would otherwise have attended schools like the University of Florida, are being scared away.
The Hijab in Sports
Brief #87 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Reilly Fitzgerald
The hijab is an article of clothing that has sparked debate for years due to its connections to the Islamic faith for some…
X Marks the Spot as Elon Musk Makes More Enemies
Brief #94 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
In a letter threatening suit on June 20, X cited this report in accusing the CCDH of “making inflammatory, outrageous, and false…
Path for Democrats to Regain the House Runs Through New York
Brief #88 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections. However…
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief #86 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
Last week the United States Department of Justice called for the removal of a floating border barrier that has raised territorial and humanitarian concerns.
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Brief #85 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Yelena Korshunov
On the night of July 18th Raisa woke up from a terrible roar and heart-rending children’s screams.
Help Wanted: Seeking Support for Unaccompanied Children
Help Wanted: Seeking Support for Unaccompanied Children
Social Justice Policy Brief #146 | By: Steve Piazza | May 15, 2023
Header photo taken from: nytimes.com
Please note: This is the second part of a report on how child labor laws are failing to protect minors from work related abuses (see U.S. RESIST NEWS Social Justice Policy Brief # 146) and the implications that has for their education. This time the focus is mainly on unaccompanied migrant children.
Policy Summary
Federal government educational support for qualified migrant children comes from the Migrant Education Program (MEP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Migrant Education (OME). The program provides grant funding under Title 1, Part C to all states, which in turn decide how the money will be used. Typically, state MEPs will offer academic, counseling, and other services to support all migrant children PreK-12 regardless of status.
OME programs also include incentives for State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to collaborate with MEPs in other states since migrant families tend to move to where the work is.
An immigrant child has legal status if he or she is accompanied by a parent or guardian who was granted official entry of some sort (even or if the child himself/herself were granted some sort of official entry. Otherwise they are considered undocumented.
Although undocumented migrant children in the United States are allowed access to PreK-12 education, unlike other migrant children they lack basic protections of federal and state social programs safeguarding their overall well being, not to mention assurances that they end up in school at all. Undocumented children are either children who are unaccompanied by a parent or a guardian or have a parent/guardian who themselves are either undocumented or whose environment is not deemed appropriate for children.
Policy Analysis
Unaccompanied minors are detained and processed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which has the responsibility to secure the release of children to sponsors it has verified, whether family members or not.
According to HHS, the number of children ORR serves has grown from 8,000 prior to 2012 to 128,904 in 2022. The Labor Department puts that last number at 146,925, while already having processed 46,825 this year.
Yet, too many unaccompanied youths are released to individuals who have not been adequately verified, and many of them end up being forced to work jobs involving long hours and hazardous conditions. School for them is not an option. Even if unaccompanied children are in good homes, economic situations there might require them to help out financially. That’s not quite trafficking, but it can have the same effect on a child’s education.
Government attempts to address the issue have fallen short. Recently, a report by Hannah Dreier of the New York Times on migrant child labor abuses of unaccompanied youth has called out the Biden Administration for failing to properly heed warnings that abuses have been taking place.
According to Dreier, the Biden Administration has since committed itself to the issue, but only after the administration refused to comment on why they ignored notifications and blame volleyed back and forth between agencies. Dreier went on to tell PBS, “no single agency is really responsible for these children after they’re released to sponsors.”
ORR Director Robin Dunn Marcos told NPR they lack the personnel and resources to monitor what happens to the migrant children once they’re released. It’s been proposed that HHS be provided with $7.3 billion to strengthen the migrant support infrastructure in 2024, but that’s a long time away.
Existing programs, like The Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, just don’t go far enough. Authorized under Title VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, that program may provide relief to some unaccompanied children as long as they’re identified and not lost in the trafficking landscape.
Directly addressing the school issue itself is also an enormous task. By law, all children regardless of status must be allowed to attend school. Education Week reports that migrant services are available for 302,000 eligible students, including 28,000 out-of-school youths.
Even for those in school, the staggering academic results show that progress is not where it should be. The Migrant State Agency Program’s 2016 performance report for migrant students grades 3 to 8 showed less than 30% proficiency standards in reading and language arts. It was even lower for math. Some of this has to do with the transitory behavior of migrant families, ongoing language barriers, and agricultural labor exceptions in existing laws, but it is an indication that much improvement is needed.
Test scores are only part of the indication that they are being underserved. Long term effects are worth considering since about 55% of migrant workers claim to have received no more than a ninth grade education. More than half of those never even made it to the seventh grade.
Meanwhile, child labor abuses remain a reality. That’s not surprising in an economy where opportunists coveting gainful bottom lines are incentivized on the backs of children. Such practices run counter to the systemic change necessary for societal norms to reflect what’s best for them.
Prioritizing unaccompanied migrant children’s welfare over production costs related to auto parts factories, meat packing plants, restaurants, and construction sites may seem herculean. But devoting protective resources now is a powerful step towards eliminating abuses not only for them, but for all children. It also teaches them the humanity they’ll need to influence how the economy, not to mention migrant programs, ought to run in the future.
Engagement Resources
- Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) is an immigration advocacy organization committed to maintaining protections for children. Here is a link to an information sheet about providing support to unaccompanied minors: https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UIC-Schools-Convening-Fact-Sheet-June-2021_updated.pdf
- The Young Center for Immigration Children’s Rights has been directly serving unaccompanied minors for almost 20 years. To learn more visit: https://www.theyoungcenter.org/about-the-young-center
Two Judges Have Opposing Rulings, and Backgrounds, on Abortion Rights
Two Judges Have Opposing Rulings, and Backgrounds, on Abortion Rights
Health & Gender Brief #161 | By: Geoffrey Small | May 12, 2023
Header photo taken from: sfchronicle.com
Last month two federal judges issued contradictory rulings on the abortion medication mifepristone, the most commonly used procedure in the United States. In Texas, U.S. Federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that a 20-year old authorization by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should be put on hold until the federal government appeals a lawsuit against the medication. Meanwhile, in Spokane, Washington, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ruled against federal officials hindering access to the medication in 17 states where Democratic Attorney Generals sued to preserve access. Exploring the two judges opposing views through their cultural backgrounds, education, and career paths can help identify a systemic pattern of political and religious influence in the effort to take away reproductive rights from women.
Matthew Kacsmaryk
Photo taken by Business Insider
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was born in Gainesville Florida to a family who had antiabortion beliefs. He graduated from a Christian University in Texas and received his law degree in the same state. Kacsmaryk became a member of the Federalist Society in 2012, which is a conservative legal organization that promotes a strict and libertarian-based interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. After a brief five-year period as an Assistant District Attorney in the State of Texas, he began working for the First Liberty Institute in 2014, where LGBTQ advocacy groups stated his writings referred to homosexuality and transgender identities as mental health issues. He also represented clients that were sued for discrimination against the LGBTQ community. In 2017, he was nominated by the Trump administration to serve as a federal judge and was eventually appointed by the Senate in 2019.
Thomas Owen Rice
Photo taken by The Spokesman-Review
Judge Thomas Rice was born in Spokane, Washington and spent his whole career working for the Federal Government. He began his career in the U.S. Department of Justice in 1986, after receiving his law degree at Gonzaga University. He worked for 26 years as an Assistant District Attorney in Washington, until he was nominated by the Obama administration to serve as a Federal Judge in 2011 and later appointed by the Senate in 2012. He was also appointed as a Chief Judge for his district.
On April 21st, the Supreme Court blocked Kacsmaryk’s decision to ban mifepristone until arguments are heard during the appeal process. The religious and cultural background of Kacsmaryk may be a clear indicator of his antiabortion influence in the federal court system. However, the stark contrast in career paths of these two federal district judges highlights the need for placing a higher standard on vetting potential candidates. It is clear that Kacsmaryk’s background in working for the federal government pales in comparison to Rice. Organizations like the Federalist Society and Liberty Institute may serve as an incubator for federal justices that oppose reproductive rights. The fact that Rice spent most of his career working for the federal justice system may have served as a buffer against influence from special interest groups with certain political and religious agendas. The Hatch Act mandated that federal employees are not allowed to engage in partisan political organizations, until it was amended in 1993 to allow partisan participation during off-duty hours.
Organizations like Lambda Legal and Alliance For Justice are sounding the alarm over appointed federal judges whose legal background and influence from special interest groups harm reproductive rights. That’s why it is important to donate to these organizations, in order to educate the public and the United States Senate on how our justice system is being influenced to carry out an antiabortion agenda.
Links to Donate
Navigating the Complexities of Content Moderation: Strategies and Challenges in the Digital Age
Navigating the Complexities of Content Moderation: Strategies and Challenges in the Digital Age
Technology Brief #87 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 10, 2023
Header photo taken from: fastcompany.com
Policy:
Content moderation is the process of monitoring and filtering user-generated content to ensure that it adheres to a platform’s guidelines and community standards. The rise of social media platforms and user-generated content has led to an increase in false content and misinformation, which can have significant social, political, and economic consequences. Misinformation can be intentionally created to manipulate public opinion, spread conspiracy theories, or promote divisive content. It can also arise inadvertently due to a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of facts. The challenges of content moderation include determining what constitutes harmful content, addressing the scale of misinformation, balancing freedom of expression with the need to prevent harm, and ensuring transparency and fairness in the moderation process.
According to a recent EU report, misinformation and disinformation campaigns have increased significantly over the past decade, driven by technological advances, social media platforms, and geopolitical tensions. Other studies by the MIT Media Lab and the RAND Corporation found that false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories, and it takes true stories about six times longer to reach 1,500 people than false stories. Yet another recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that more than half of US adults believe misinformation on social media is a major problem, and 48% believe the government should play a more significant role in addressing the issue.
Analysis:
Content moderation can be performed using a combination of human reviewers, automated algorithms, and user reporting. Major platforms like Facebook and Twitter have implemented various content moderation strategies, including employing thousands of human moderators, using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to detect and remove harmful content, and allowing users to report inappropriate content.
Government regulation of content moderation is another approach. For example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), implemented in 2017, requires social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours of receiving a user complaint. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA), proposed in 2020 and still under negotiation, aims to establish a legal framework for regulating content moderation and holding platforms accountable for illegal content. Here in the United States, ongoing discussions revolve around potential revisions to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to platforms for user-generated content.
Case studies demonstrating different approaches to content moderation include:
a. Facebook’s Oversight Board: Established in 2018, Facebook’s Oversight Board is an independent body responsible for reviewing content moderation decisions. In January 2021, the board upheld Facebook’s decision to suspend former President Donald Trump’s account but also criticized the platform’s policies and urged for clearer guidelines.
b. Twitter’s Approach to COVID-19 Misinformation: Twitter implemented stricter content moderation policies to combat COVID-19 misinformation, including labeling misleading information, providing links to authoritative sources, and removing content that could cause direct harm. This case demonstrates the proactive steps platforms can take to combat misinformation during public health crises.
c. YouTube’s Removal of QAnon Content: In October 2020, YouTube announced a crackdown on conspiracy theory content, specifically targeting QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that had gained significant traction on the platform. This move highlighted the responsibility of social media platforms to curb the spread of harmful conspiracy theories.
Striking the right balance between freedom of expression and harm prevention is a complex task that requires continuous assessment and improvement. Governments, social media platforms, and stakeholders must work collaboratively to develop transparent, fair, and adaptable content moderation strategies that evolve with the ever-changing digital landscape. By fostering a culture of accountability and promoting information literacy, we can empower individuals to make informed decisions and contribute to a healthier online environment for all.
Engagement Resources:
Center for Humane Technology: The Center for Humane Technology is a non-profit organization focused on addressing the societal impacts of technology, including content moderation and misinformation.
First Draft: First Draft is a non-profit organization that provides resources and training to help journalists, researchers, and civil society organizations address misinformation and disinformation.
Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network: The International Fact-Checking Network is a global coalition of fact-checking organizations that promotes best practices and high standards in fact-checking.
NewsGuard: NewsGuard is a service that rates news websites based on their reliability and transparency, helping users identify trustworthy sources and combat misinformation.
Global Disinformation Index: The Global Disinformation Index is a non-profit organization that aims to create a global benchmark for disinformation risk, helping to inform policy, investment, and platform decisions.
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Environmental Policy Brief #154 | By: Todd J. Broadman | May 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: marketplace.org
Policy:
Oceans make up over 70% of the Earth’s surface and contain 95% of total habitat – only 9% of which has been classified. Most of that watery habitat lies unprotected from human exploitation. That is beginning to change. In early March of this year, a UN treaty was signed that aims to protect the high seas: the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ). The agreement creates marine protected zones, preserving ocean ecosystems throughout the earth’s deep oceans, areas beyond national boundaries. A country’s marine boundary extends 200 nautical miles off-coast.
While the UN’s “30×30” agreement intends to protect 30% of all land and 30% of all water, just 3% of the ocean is “fully protected.” Previous to this agreement, in 1982, there was an agreed upon framework about how to use the extensive resources of the seas: the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Convention attempted to frame and limit deep seabed mining, commercial fishing, and research, yet only 1.2% of the high seas came under its protection.
BBNJ claims to be legally binding and the agreement was only arrived at after five long, previous rounds of negotiations. The scientific community have been relied upon to prioritize regions of the ocean for protection. For example, Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at the University of California Santa Barbara, presented his findings on “biodiversity hotspots,” areas of importance due to species richness, extinction risk and habitat diversity.
Analysis:
In spite of the media excitement surrounding this new agreement, the BBNJ agreement has not been formally adopted; there is an upcoming meeting to do just that. Existing global marine organizations, though not bound by its content, are expected to “promote the Treaty’s objectives.” To add a further dose of realism, the Treaty defines a protected area as one that is “managed” and “may allow, where appropriate, sustainable use provided it is consistent with the conservation objectives.”
It is not an overstatement to say that scientists are more familiar with the moon and outer space than with our deep oceans. There are an estimated 240,000 marine species and to date only 17,903 have been evaluated for possible extinction. If nothing is done, the rate of species extinction will accelerate, well before given a chance to understand what species have been lost. What we do know is that half of our atmosphere’s oxygen has its origin in the ocean’s phytoplankton.
According to Dr. McCauley, “We’re effectively seeing an industrial revolution in the ocean.” As on land, commercial investments are driving ocean resource development – the so-called “blue economy” which extends to marine genetic resources. The BBNJ does attempt to address these resources as well, outlining how the “benefits” of such genetics can be shared – in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals for example. Also troubling is what may be exclusive reliance upon this and similar agreements. Liz Karan, Director of Ocean Governance project at Pew, said the BBNJ is “the only pathway to safeguard high seas biodiversity for generations to come.” Sixty nations need to ratify the Treaty before it can be implemented.
This latest Treaty, though ambitious, is a success only to the extent that participating countries adhere to its environmental protections. Recent rulings are not encouraging in this regard. China was recently taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration for commercial fishing that encroached upon Philippine national waters in the South China Sea and the court ruled against China. China’s reaction: “It is only a scrap of paper.”
Each member state will have to go through an internal national ratification process for the BBNJ, a path fraught with difficulty as we experienced with the Paris Climate Accords. Beyond this, the legal framework for high seas enforcement and dispute resolution have not been worked out. And then there is the question of who pays for it.
At least we have recognition and a decided leaning towards protection of what makes up 70% of our planet. While government representatives are diligently working to seal these protections, the International Forum for Deep Sea Mining Professionals will be holding their 11th Annual Deep Sea Mining Summit 2023 in London on May 3rd and 4th. Immediate economic interests like these will likely not be constrained by well-meaning language in a UN Treaty.
Engagement Resources:
- https://marine-conservation.org/ uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems, advocate for their protection, and measure progress toward effective, sustainable marine protection.
- https://aida-americas.org/en uses the law and science to protect the environment and communities suffering from environmental harm.
- https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/ocean-governance addresses the challenges of a changing world by illuminating issues and creating common ground.
An Early Overview of the 2024 U.S. Senate Races
An Early Overview of the 2024 U.S. Senate Races
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #76 | By: Ian Milden | May 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: aa.com.tr
Summary:
One-third of the U.S. Senate will be up for election in 2024. This Brief will provide an overview of what seats will be up this cycle, and where each party has strengths and weaknesses for this cycle’s elections.
Analysis:
Democrats will have a large number of seats to defend after stacking together strong cycles in 2006, 2012, and 2018. Given that Democrats only have a 51-49 majority, they can’t afford to lose more than two seats (or one if they lose the presidency), if they are to retain their majority. The map for Democrats is particularly challenging this cycle because they are defending three seats in states that will likely be won by the Republican presidential nominee.
The most difficult one to defend will be in West Virginia. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has not decided whether he will run for re-election, and he has said that he won’t until later this year. If Manchin chooses not to run for re-election, Republicans are very likely to take the seat since no other Democrat has been competitive in a statewide race in West Virginia in years. Republicans have recruited Governor Jim Justice (R-WV), the state’s wealthiest resident, to run for the seat. Justice is expected to face Congressman Alex Mooney (R-WV) in the primary. If Manchin does run, he will face a formidable opponent.
The other two seats in red states that Democrats will defend are held by Jon Tester in Montana and Sherod Brown in Ohio. Both incumbents have said that they will run for re-election, and they have significant amounts of money in their campaign accounts.
Most major presidential battlegrounds will also feature Senate races where Democrats are defending seats. Democrats will defend seats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, and Arizona. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) have announced that they are running for re-election and have significant amounts of money in their campaign accounts. Casey, Baldwin, and Klobuchar are all tested incumbents who have won multiple terms. Rosen won competitive elections for a US House seat before she defeated Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) in 2018. All of these incumbents should be early favorites, though it is unclear whom the Republicans will nominate to face them.
In Michigan, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced that she planned to retire. Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who represents a swing district, has launched a campaign for the vacant Senate seat. Most prominent Democrats in Michigan have expressed disinterest in running against Slotkin, so she will likely be the Democratic nominee.
Arizona is more complicated. Senator Kyrsten Sinema recently left the Democratic Party to become an independent. She has not declared whether she is running for reelection. Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) has launched a campaign for the Democratic nomination. If Sinema runs, that might help Republicans’ chances of winning the seat.
There aren’t many Republican-held seats that Democrats can realistically target. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) is up for re-election, but Democrats have performed poorly in the Miami area in recent elections. Democrats can’t compete statewide if they are not winning in the Miami area by large margins, and Democrats have not been willing to invest the resources needed to fix that problem.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is also up for re-election in 2024. While Cruz had a close call in 2018, I would be surprised if Democrats can achieve that same level of success in 2024. Changes in voting patterns, particularly in the urban and suburban areas of Texas, have made Texas more competitive, but the margins have not shifted enough for Democrats to start winning elections. Texas is also a very expensive state to compete in, so I would expect national Democrats to prioritize defending incumbents over takeover targets like Texas.
The other seats that Republicans have to defend are in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Democrats are unlikely to be competitive in any of those races.
Engagement Resources:
The Battle Over Gig Worker Protections Heads to the California Supreme Court and the US Senate
The Battle Over Gig Worker Protections Heads to the California Supreme Court and the US Senate
Technology Policy Brief #86 | By: Mindy Spatt | May 2, 2023
Header photo taken from: calmatters.org/Mike Blake/Reuters
Summary:
Rideshare companies have won the latest round in their fight to stop California’s gig worker protection legislation from becoming law. At the same time, a high-profile campaign to defeat Julie Su, President Biden’s pick for Labor Secretary, who the industry opposes, failed to stop Su’s nomination from advancing out of Committee to the full Senate.
Analysis:
Prop 22, the industry backed initiative to roll back gig worker protections in California, passed after a record breaking $224 million campaign, the most ever spent on a statewide ballot initiative. But a Superior Court Judge deemed the measure an unconstitutional usurping of the state’s authority over workers compensation. A San Francisco Appeals Court recently overturned that ruling, setting the stage for the issue to go to the state Supreme Court.
The same battle over the status of gig workers is playing out in Washington. Julie Su, who delivery and rideshare companies blame for supporting and enforcing worker protections in California while serving as labor secretary there, is seeking confirmation as President ‘Biden’s Labor Secretary, a cabinet-level position.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee advanced Su’s nomination on a party line vote on April 26, setting the stage for what will undoubtedly be a close floor vote. Republicans on the Committee were vociferously opposed, lambasting Su as “The Chief Enforcer of AB 5.”
AB 5 was the California statute that classified some gig workers as employees and hence entitled to minimum wages, sick time and healthcare. It was dismantled by the expensive and deceptive campaign for Prop 22.
The Flex association, which represents Uber, Door Dash and other companies that rely on gig workers, complained to Biden in a letter that Su “does not appreciate” that classifying gig workers as employees could cause many to lose access to such work and demanding that she commit to not trying to do so on the federal level.
Stand Against Su, a new organizations led by the California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA) has even gone so far as to run anti-Su ads on Facebook and pricey print and billboard adverts in states represented by Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Jon Tester, in hopes they will break ranks with democrats and vote against her.
While the industry fears a repeat of AB 5 on a national level if Su is confirmed, they are unlikely to like any of Biden’s choices. The President has made it clear that he is strongly in favor of increased rights for gig workers.
And Prop 22 is far from settled. A strongly worded dissent from Justice Jon Streeter is giving advocates hope as the issue heads to the California Supreme Court. Streeter criticized the faux benefits Prop 22 put in place as not providing any health or safety protections whatsoever for workers.
That is certainly the conclusion reached by the National Equity Atlas, whose September 2022 report on rideshare workers’ pay and conditions found that :
- “Drivers’ median net take-home earnings are just $6.20 per hour under Prop 22. Drivers who pay for health insurance out of pocket earn nearly half of that.”
- “Drivers would earn nearly $11 more per hour if they were classified as employees.”
- “Rideshare work has become less flexible and more controlled by rideshare companies under Prop 22.”
Su’s opponents argue the opposite, although they have no data to back up their claims, and are likely to ramp up their lobbying campaign even further as her nomination heads to the Senate floor for approval.
Engagement Resources:
- Revealed: The Corporations Mobilizing to Defeat Biden’s Labor Secretary Nominee By Donald Shaw and David Moore, April 12 2023, Sludge
- Prop 22 Depresses Wages and Deepens Inequities for California Workers By Eliza McCullough, Brian Dolber,* Justin Scoggins, Edward-Michael Muña, and Sarah Treuhaft, September 21, 2022
- New Brief Finds Uber & Lyft Took Highest Commissions During the Worst of Pandemic, February 15, 2023
Justice Thomas’ Ethical Lapses Illustrate The Need of An Ethical Code for the Supreme Court
Justice Thomas’ Ethical Lapses Illustrate The Need of An Ethical Code for the Supreme Court
Civil Rights Policy Brief #204 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | May 2, 2023
Header photo taken from: npr.org
Policy Summary:
Except for the United States Supreme Court, members of the federal bench (judges, magistrates) are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. At the state level, every state has enacted a code of conduct that all state judges must abide by. The names may differ by state, e.g. Judicial Conduct Commission, Board on Judicial Standards, Judicial Standards Commission, but the purpose is to impose ethical standards for every judge in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and promote confidence in the courts and the decisions that a court issues. The United States is not alone in having an ethical code for their jurists. Internationally, many courts have enacted their own judicial codes, such as this ethical code for the International Criminal Court in Europe. Even non – governmental organizations recognize the importance of having an ethical code for courts and jurists as the American Bar Association has issued a model code for a state to adopt whole or piecemeal if it decides. The issue of judicial ethics is a well-accepted legal concept with no lack of codes and resources for a jurist to refer to to guide his actions as a member and officer of the judiciary.
However, there is no enforceable code of judicial ethics for members of the United States Supreme Court.
On April 6, 2023 the website ProPublica published an explosive expose of Justice Clarence Thomas’ relationship with billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow. The article revealed that for more than two decades, Crow has bestowed on Justice Thomas and his wife trips, travel and accommodations that could be considered luxury gifts because of their high dollar value. Justice Thomas and his wife traveled on Mr. Crow’s private jet, were guests on his private yacht and traveled to numerous locations around the globe. An estimated cost of the use of Mr. Crow’s private jet and superyacht if Justice Thomas had paid for it out of his own pocket would be in excess of $500,000. However, Justice Thomas and his wife never paid any of these expenses and allowed Mr. Crow to foot the bill. Additionally, in 2014 Harlan Crow purchased three properties owned by Justice Thomas. Mr. Crow paid $133,363 total for all three and then allowed Justice Thomas’ mother to continue to live in one of the homes on the lot he purchased. Mr. Crow subsequently made $36,000 worth of improvements on the lot. These gifts were not reported in the Justice’s federal disclosure reports even though federal officials must disclose real estate sales over $1,000.
In anticipation of a May 2, 2023 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, chairman of the committee Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the committee to discuss proposals about possible ethical codes for the Supreme Court. Citing separation of powers concerns and the independence of the judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts declined the invitation. Sen. Durbin subsequently responded that he would continue working for Supreme Court ethics reform.
Learn More on How Chief Justice Roberts Declines Senate Request To Testify On Judicial Ethics
Policy Analysis:
The fact that the United States Supreme Court is the only court in the United States without a binding ethical code is a lapse that must be corrected immediately.
The likely reason that the Supreme Court does not currently have an ethical code may be due to the concept of separation of powers. That idea states that powers expressly declared to be within the province of a particular branch of government are for that government branch to decide alone at the exclusion of the other branches of government. This has led to the legislative and executive branch taking a hands off attitude when it comes to the business of the Supreme Court. The thinking goes, that if the Supreme Court needed an ethical code, the Supreme Court would decide to give itself one.
However, all of the ethical codes at the lower levels of the judiciary and in the state courts have shown that the current hands off approach towards the Supreme Court are unworkable. Justice Thomas’ activities has created problems that is undermining confidence in the Court and in the judiciary. An analysis of the codes for the lower levels of the federal judiciary and the state courts illustrate the purpose of the ethical codes and what they are designed to prevent. One particular language that is key to Justice Thomas’ questionable activities that is found in all the codes is that a judge should avoid “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” in all activities. What this means is that a judge should avoid activities that would raise the impression that the judge or justice’s integrity or impartiality would be impaired. Because Justice Thomas accepted gifts that are estimated to cost in excess of $500,000 on more than one occasion, a reasonable person could conclude that a wealthy donor is trying to influence the justice’s legal decisions. Mr. Crow is well known as a donor who supports GOP causes and he also serves on the boards of conservative think tanks. While Mr. Crow does not need to have a pending case in front of Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court to create the impression of improper influence, his gifts to the Justice and his wife now raises the question “Did Mr. Crow’s gifts influence the Justice to rule a certain way?” Had the Supreme Court had an ethical code for its justices modeled on any of the state judicial ethical codes or the codes for other members of the federal judiciary, then this problem of improper influence of a sitting Supreme Court justice would not have arisen. Justice Thomas would have been obligated to disclose the gifts and would have been obligated to avoid situations where an improper influence could be perceived.
What is just as disappointing as Justice Thomas’ behavior is the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts has declined to work with Congress to have an ethical code implemented for the Supreme Court. The opportunity is there and, in fact, it would be very easy to do. A new code would not even have to be written as Congress, with the Chief Justice’s support, could simply use the current ethical code that applies to all the other members of the federal judiciary at the appeals and district court levels and apply it to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice refusing to even work with Congress only ensures that another justice could find him or herself in the same situation that Justice Thomas (and his wife, for other reasons) has now found himself in.
Engagement Resources:
- ProPublica – News group’s expose of Justice Thomas’ relationship with GOP donor Harlan Crow.
- National Center for State Courts – group’s info page on every state’s ethical judicial codes with links.
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.
The Challenge in Regulating AI
The Challenge in Regulating AI
Technology Policy Brief #85 | By: Steve Piazza | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: innovationatwork.ieee.org
Policy Issue Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Since artificial technology (AI) technology is relatively new, policy regarding the appropriate use of it is still evolving. Domestically and abroad, actions have been taken to minimize any of the harm that may ensue due to possible misuse.
For example, last year 17 states introduced legislation, and three more states passed laws in response to growing concerns of the use of AI. Studies are also underway in a small handful of other states to explore the issue. To date, though, no sweeping federal legislation exists.
Meanwhile, in September 2022, the United States government banned two U.S. companies, Nvidia and AMD, from exporting select AI chips to China. The reasoning was to prevent China from getting ahead in the AI race and to use the technology for military purposes.
Despite minimal legal action to ward off threats, however, the numerous ethical dilemmas being raised remain in the shadows. Such questions are crucial in the effort to utilize the extremely valuable advantages of the technology while at the same time keep severe consequences from occurring.
Policy Analysis
Each time a new technology is introduced, whether it is nuclear energy or cloning, arguments supporting or opposing it become more difficult to formulate. The arguments themselves, which frequently emanate from unverified news, often fail to reflect the underlying ethical dilemmas presented by new breakthroughs. And when it comes to passing laws or creating public policy, the advantages and consequences of the technology are becoming less and less tangible.
The utilization of AI is rapidly influencing just about every industry, such as health, education, transportation, and finance. The benefits of this new technology are many: it can help spot diseases early on, deliver customized learning opportunities and immediate feedback to students, detect hazardous driving conditions and regulate emissions in cars, and alert commercial institutions and their clients when fraud is occurring. Such benefits justify the existence of AI. It’s hard to argue against technologies that save lives and secure property.
But the benefits can come with a price. When AI devices replace humans who traditionally perform tasks requiring judgment, questions about integrity and objectivity arise. AI can easily create a false sense of security.
Michael Sandel, Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, say “AI not only replicates human biases, it confers on these biases a kind of scientific credibility. It makes it seem that these predictions and judgments have an objective status.” Said another way, AI may replace human tasks but not human judgment.
The speed and lack of understanding of this technology is so vast, it leaves protections against machines making existential decisions in the hands of an industry that is too in awe of what it creates to act. Underprepared public officials under growing tremendous pressure are unable to do something about it.
It’s one thing to agree safeguards are necessary, and another to put them into place and enforce them. Even when existing laws have served well, many do the exact opposite of what they intended to do. For example, as the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) uses artificially developed, but extremely enhanced methods to generate selection criteria in lending, housing, and insurance, it may end up discriminating against those traditionally underserved and actually deny rights and services to them.
Government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have expressed the commitment to prevent businesses from using AI to mislead and take advantage of the unsuspecting. But like those in the AI world who don’t understand what the AI they invent might do in the long run, the FTC has taken to using terms like “advised companies, “emphasize the use of” and “offer important lessons” suggesting that they are relying on the industries themselves to do the right thing.
At the moment, standards developed by The National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) do exist. NIST created The Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) which, in effect, provides a “voluntary” Framework, to “help foster the responsible design, development, deployment, and use of AI systems over time.”
That may be something, but it still leaves us with more, effective AI laws waiting to be written and practical methods by which to enforce them. Meanwhile, ethicists will be busy addressing AI dilemmas as they emerge and find they’ll be revising both questions and answers frequently just to keep up.
The list of benefits and concerns will continue to develop, as will AI. And like any tool, AI technologies must be used by those who are adept and judicious. It might even help employing AI to develop answers to our legal and moral questions, just as long as we’re the ones asking them and judging the answers.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Engagement Resources
For an example of efforts made towards establishing worldwide principles for the ethical use of AI, read UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
Here are two extensive lists of organizations promoting the responsible use of AI (limited overlap):
https://alltechishuman.org/responsibble-ai-knowledge-hub/#ri-orgs
https://www.aiethicist.org/ai-organizations
The Center for AI and Digital Policy Studies (CAIDP) examines the policies of countries around the world for their commitment to using AI responsibly and reports their progress. This map is good place to see how countries compare based on metrics in the Artificial Intelligence and Democratic Values 2022 Index developed by CAIDP: https://www.caidp.org/reports/aidv-2022/aidv-maps/
Congress Tries to Tame Big Tech: Anti-Trust, Content Regulation, and Privacy Protection: Part I
Congress Tries to Tame Big Tech: Anti-Trust, Content Regulation, and Privacy Protection: Part I
Technology Policy Brief #84 | By: Inijah Quadri | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: ft.com
This Brief introduces a new series of U.S. RESIST NEWS reports on the challenges involved in regulating big tech. The Brief provides an overview of the key challenges involved in such regulation — content moderation, privacy protection, and anti-trust regulation. In subsequent Briefs in this series, we will take an in-depth look at each of these issues.
Policy Issue Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Big tech companies, such as Meta (formerly Facebook), Twitter, TikTok, and various right-wing platforms like Truth Social and Parler, have dominated the digital landscape and transformed the way people communicate and share information. While these platforms have undeniable social and economic influence, concerns have arisen over their monopolistic practices, content moderation policies, and privacy issues. As a result, the U.S. Congress has been pushing to regulate these giants and protect consumers. This Brief provides an in-depth analysis of congressional efforts to address anti-trust issues, content regulation, and privacy protection within the social media industry.
I. Anti-Trust Measures
In this section, we discuss the various concerns and proposals regarding the monopolistic practices of Meta, Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms. Congress has been examining their acquisitions, market power, and influence to ensure a competitive environment and prevent anti-competitive behavior.
Meta has faced scrutiny from Congress due to its massive market power and acquisitions of new tech companies. Lawmakers argue that these acquisitions have resulted in an uncompetitive market and reduced innovation. As such, proposals have been made to break up the company, as well as establish clear guidelines for future acquisitions to prevent monopolistic behavior.
Similar to Meta, Twitter has been accused of wielding too much influence in the social media space, which has led to calls for more stringent anti-trust measures. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had proposed preventing companies like Twitter from engaging in self-preferencing practices that disadvantage competitors.
Additionally, Congress is examining acquisitions and mergers in the broader social media industry, including TikTok and right-wing platforms like Truth Social and Parler. Of particular concern is TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, due to its foreign ownership and potential national security threats. As the platform and others gain popularity, these investigations aim to identify anti-competitive practices and ensure a level playing field for all companies.
II. Content Regulation
Content regulation is a critical issue in the social media landscape, and this section focuses on the ongoing debates and proposals related to Section 230 reform, political advertisements and misinformation, and content moderation policies. The goal is to strike a balance between protecting users from harmful content and preserving the platforms’ ability to facilitate free expression.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, there are increasing calls to reform this law to hold platforms more accountable for harmful content, misinformation, and the spread of extremism.
Congress is also working to create regulations that increase transparency for political ads, limit microtargeting, and tackle the spread of misinformation. Legislation, such as the Honest Ads Act, aims to promote transparency and disclosure requirements for political advertising on social media.
Also, the inconsistency of content moderation policies across platforms has prompted Congress to push for clearer guidelines and increased accountability. Lawmakers are considering proposals that require platforms to be transparent about their moderation policies and processes.
III. Privacy Protection
Privacy protection is a growing concern, as users become increasingly aware of how their data is being collected and used. This section explores congressional efforts to develop comprehensive data privacy legislation and promote algorithmic transparency, aiming to provide users more control over their personal information and create a more transparent digital ecosystem.
Congress is working on comprehensive data privacy legislation to protect user information and establish strict guidelines for data collection, usage, and sharing. While some of these practices are being implemented in several states, there is yet to be cohesion across the board. This unified legislation would give users more control over their personal information and set penalties for companies that violate privacy rules.
In addition to the above, concerns over algorithmic bias and the lack of transparency in how algorithms shape user experiences have prompted congressional efforts to require platforms to disclose their algorithmic processes. This would enable users to better understand the factors influencing the content they see and provide an opportunity to challenge potential biases.
Conclusion
Lobbying efforts by big tech companies and their affiliated organizations have significant influence over the legislative process. Despite these efforts, there is still a chance that Congress can pass meaningful legislation to address the industry’s various issues, particularly if public pressure mounts and lawmakers find common ground. The ultimate success of these legislative efforts will depend on the ability to navigate partisan differences, overcome industry resistance, and respond to public demand for change.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
Congressional Research Service: (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46875)
Investopedia: (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp)
ScienceDirect: (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000018)
The Guardian: (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/09/facebook-lawsuit-antitrust-whatsapp-instagram-ftc)
The New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html)
The Sling: (https://www.thesling.org/the-antitrust-case-against-elon-musks-twitter/)
The Week that Was: Global News In Review #6
The Week that Was: Global News In Review #6
Foreign Policy Brief #75 | By: Abran C | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: theconversation.com
This is our 6th in a series designed to help our readers catch up on international events of the past week.
Conflict in Sudan
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For the last two weeks intense fighting has raged in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, between warring factions that has plunged the country into chaos. The violence was triggered over a disagreement on an internationally backed plan to form a new civilian government in Sudan. Since the fall of ousted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir two years ago, Sudan has been under military rule and was supposed to move toward a civilian run democracy. A rivalry between Sudan’s top two generals General Abdel Fattah Burhan who leads the country’s military and General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo who leads the Rapid Support Forces has turned into a deadly conflict as of April 15, 2023. Over the weekend foreign governments such as the US, UK, and France began emergency evacuations of diplomats, staff, and foreign nationals out of the country. The fighting has already claimed hundreds of lives, with both factions using heavy weaponry in residential areas, leading to tens of thousands of Sudanese fleeing their homes, while millions more are currently trapped between the warring sides with diminishing supplies of food and water.
Global Military Spending Reaches New High
Global military spending reached an all time high last year, reaching $2.24 trillion. Military spending rose across the globe for the eighth consecutive year, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and tensions in East Asia as the fuel to the increase in military spending. Regionally, Europe saw the largest spike in spending at 13 percent, the highest in at least 30 years. The total expenditure by Central and Western European states reached $345 billion and marked the first time they have surpassed military spending in 1989, the final year of the Cold War. The fact that global military spending reached the level that it has and continues to increase along with an ever growing number of conflicts demonstrates that we are living currently in a very fragile international system. Among military spenders the United States remained the world’s largest military spender at $877 billion in 2022, which alone was 39 percent of total global military spending. Meanwhile, Russian military spending grew by an estimated 9.2 per cent in 2022, to about $86.4 billion, China, which is the world’s 2nd largest spender, allocated $293 billion to its military, and Japan spent $46billion on its growing military budget, a rise of 5.9 percent from the previous year. Tensions in Europe as well as in East Asia have risen over the past few years and will likely continue to grow, and along with those tensions military budgets will continue to reach record highs.
Extreme Heat Wave Across Asia
Temperature records across Asia are being broken as an intense April heat wave sweeps across large portions of the continent. Over the weekend, Thailand topped 113°F for the first time in its history. Although not record-breaking in most cases, the heat has also been prevalent and deadly across South Asia. Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh have all seen temperatures topping 104°F for many days. The extremely hot temperatures across South and Southeast Asia are expected to continue into the months ahead into the region’s monsoon season.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!