JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Abortion Decision Sparks New Privacy Concerns
Brief #140 – Health & Gender
By Alexandra Ellis
On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court released the published opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.19-1392, 597 U.S. ___. In a 6-3 majority opinion, a group of unelected officials stripped people bare of the right to choose whether they will carry a pregnancy to term and left this determination up to the states.
Misinformation Money
Brief #64 – Technology Policy
By Maureen Darby-Serson
Last month, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was ordered to pay the families of the Sandy Hook massacre over $49 million in damages for spreading false claims that the mass shooting was a hoax. He was forced to pay to a group of parents that sued him and to an individual parent that sued him separately. And this is just one recent instance of a conspiracy theorist being forced to face the music after making hurtful claims about individuals or events.
Monkeypox: Is the Biden Administration Learning from COVID-19 Mistakes?
Brief #139 – Health & Gender Policy
By Geoffrey Small
A 2020 United Nations report outlined multiple factors contributing to the likelihood that the world will experience another pandemic. Global issues such as unsustainable agriculture, population growth, and climate change will have a significant impact on the severity and frequency of the next zoonotic diseases like monkeypox and COVID-19. The report recommended better overall international coordination.
Advance with Caution: Analyzing the Implications of Potential Supreme Court Reforms
Brief #42 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
In wake of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health decision overturning Roe v .Wade, there have been calls to reform the Supreme Court. In this brief, I will examine the implications of potential reforms. Specifically, I will look at reforms to the nomination process, expanding the court, and term limits.
Assessing Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan
Brief #143 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On Tuesday August 2, 2022, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touched down in Taiwan, becoming the highest-ranking US official to visit the island since former Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Her trip was not officially approved by the Biden administration as a diplomatic mission.
The Chinese government had warned against the visit to the island that it regards as a part of its territory. The US officially recognizes Taiwan as a part of China per the one China policy, yet the US also has a long-standing relationship with Taiwan independent of China, and is its major source of military equipment.
IT’S TIME TO REFORM THE SUPREME COURT
U.S. RESIST NEWS OP ED
By Rod Maggay, Ian Milden, Geoff Small, Ian Sultan and Managing Editor Ron Israel
The events at the Supreme Court, such as the over-turn of Roe v Wade and the political actions of Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, cast light on the need to reform the workings of the Court. In this Op Ed, U.S. RESIST NEWS makes suggestions for ways in which the Supreme Court can become more reflective of all Americans and not just a narrow few, and become more accountable for its actions.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #11
Brief #142 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On July 31, 2022 Ukranian President Zelensky ordered civilians to evacuate from the Donetsk region. Between 200,000 and 220,000 civilians still live in the unoccupied area of Donetsk, according to Ukrainian estimates.
Preview of US Senate Races in Colorado and New Hampshire
Brief #41 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
Control of the U.S. Senate will be up for grabs in the 2022 mid-term elections. Competitive races in key states will determine the balance of power. In this brief, I will preview the US Senate races in Colorado and New Hampshire.
A Conservative Supreme Court Handicaps the EPA in its Fight Against Climate Change
Brief #145 – Environmental Policy
By Jacob Morton
On June 30th, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, issued a ruling to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions released by power plants that burn fossil fuels. The Court’s conservative majority argues that only Congress has the power to make such grand regulations, even though Congress already granted the EPA this authority. Dissenting liberal justices say the conservative majority is making up rules to protect Big Coal.
Free Speech Advocates Push Back Against The 1619 Project Culture War, Book Bans
Free Speech Advocates Push Back Against The 1619 Project Culture War, Book Bans
Education Policy Brief #51 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | March 27, 2022
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Pulse
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As conservatives continue to inflame the culture war over “critical race theory” and curriculum or books that it labels as unpatriotic or offensive, free speech advocates are fighting back.
At the heart of the battle is “The 1619 Project”, the controversial and Pulitzer-prize-winning initiative that has drawn both praise and criticism. Created by Nikole Hannah-Jones for The New York Times, the project has since been made into a book and is being taught in some school districts and at the college level. The 1619 Project is a compilation of essays and reflections published in August of 2019 to mark the 400th anniversary of the start of American slavery. It essentially attempts to reframe the country’s history by suggesting America actually began in 1619 when the first slave ship arrived, rather than in 1776. The 1619 Project examines the contributions of Black Americans to building the United States and the far-reaching consequences of slavery.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 38 members of his Senate GOP caucus, who want to remove the project from federal grant programs, last year called The 1619 Project “divisive” in a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.
Hannah-Jones said in response: “When you hear people like him saying that teaching the actual facts of American history are divisive, maybe that’s because we have a divisive history in this country. He’s not arguing that we shouldn’t teach the truth. He’s just saying that the truth is too difficult for our nation to bear and that we’re far too fragile to be able to withstand the scrutiny of the truth.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) authored the Saving American History Act of 2020, which would ban the use federal tax dollars for staff development in school districts that use or adopt parts of The 1619 Project curriculum. While that federal bill didn’t grain any traction, the free speech nonprofit group PEN America reports there have been 22 bills targeting The 1619 Project in different states since January of 2021. Fourteen of those are pending, while six failed or were withdrawn. Texas is currently the only state that has legally banned the project. Hannah-Jones says she believes many politicians have not read the curriculum and she encourages them to do so before criticizing it.
Policy Analysis
History experts have criticized Republican legislators for supporting bills that attempt to force teachers to gloss over parts of U.S. history, arguing the effort is closer to nationalism and indoctrination of students, rather than teaching them how to think critically for themselves.
One view of teaching American history is to instill a sense of pride in one’s country, while another view is to teach students about how history has shaped society. As a more diverse generation of historians emerged in the post-World War II era, historical research began to include sources that had been previously ignored, including slave narratives and oral histories of former slaves. That, in turn, brought in more voices and is reshaping and building the narrative, changing the way American scholars and the public view slavery.
While some historians have criticized parts of the project, the Times has stood behind it. The Pulitzer Center, in partnership with The 1619 Project, has made lesson plans available and says more than 4,000 educators from all 50 states have reported using its resources.
“What the project at its heart tries to do is explain our country to itself,” Nikole Hannah-Jones said at the University of Notre Dame earlier this month. “People talk about the project as if it’s a history, but it’s not a history. It’s actually about America right now, and it’s using history to explain how did we get the country we got.”
In addition to efforts to stifle teaching of The 1619 Project, renewed attempts to ban various books from schools have been back in full force. This was most notably seen in Glenn Youngkin’s fall 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election, which relied on campaign ads featuring a mother who pushed to ban Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved from her son’s curriculum.
But free speech advocates are fighting back. For example, when a York County, PA school district banned several books that focused on diversity last fall, a series of student protests prompted the local school board to overturn the ban.
Photo taken from: York Daily Record
(click or tap to enlargen)
Similarly, when a school district in a St. Louis suburb banned Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and several other books about race and gender, two students partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri to successfully get the decision reversed. Last month the Wentzville School Board reversed its decision in the face of the criticism and a class-action lawsuit.
The ACLU, PEN America and the NCAC have been working with local activists, educators and families around the country, helping them to mobilize opposition to book bans. The CEO of Penguin Random House, Markus Dohle, has said he will personally donate $500,000 for a book defense fund to be run in partnership with PEN.
Red, Wine & Blue is a national network of politically engaged “PTA mamas and digital divas” that offers online “Trouble Maker Training”, which includes such guidance as “Present a calm face to counter the yelling and shouting” and “Own individual freedom: You can decide what is right for your child, but you don’t get to dictate what’s right for other families.”
Diversity Our Narrative is another nonprofit that is helping students take on free speech battles. It has chapters across the U.S. with over 1,700 students in more than 200 school districts who are community organizers who advocate for education that does not avoid teaching about race, racism, and anti-racism.
The “windows and mirrors” concept developed by Rudine Sims Bishop, a renowned scholar in multicultural children’s literature, theorizes that books can serve either as “mirrors” to reflect and validate one’s own identity, or as “windows” to see new perspectives. It’s clear many educators, parents and students recognize banning books that are “windows” to other parts of society or history sets a dangerous precedent.
“You cannot heal divisions by pretending they don’t exist,” James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, told The 19th, a nonprofit organization in reference to The 1619 Project. “The way to address divisions is to understand the history of those divisions.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The 1619 Project – The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
Senate GOP letter to Education Sec. Miguel Cardona
The Saving American History Act of 2020
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4292
The Pulitzer Center/Teaching The 1619 Project:
Red, Wine & Blue
Diversify Our Narrative:
https://www.diversifyournarrative.com/
Pen America – Educational Gag Orders:
https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/
Top 10 most challenged books of 2021:
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10
Situation Update #6: The Ukraine Crisis
Situation Update #6: The Ukraine Crisis
Foreign Policy Brief #150 | By: Abran C | March 28, 2022
Header photo taken from: Al Jazeera
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Sumter Item
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Over a month into Russia’s assault on Ukraine, there still is no end. Russia’s attempt to conquer Ukraine has stalled and taken a much larger toll than many predicted. A lack of preparedness, supplies, and morale has caused a stalemate among ground forces. Yet as Russia’s advance has slowed, its air assaults have intensified. About 300 people are believed to have been killed in an airstrike by Russian warplanes on a theatre in the city of Mariupol. Ten million people have now fled their homes because of the invasion, with 6.5 million are displaced within Ukraine itself, and 3.5 million have fled to neighboring countries. The EU has granted Ukrainians fleeing the war a right to stay and work within the 27 member nations for up to three years. Refugees will also have access to social welfare, housing, medical treatment, and schools.
Russia has claimed it has completed the first phase of its “military operation” in Ukraine and would now focus on “liberating” eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. The announcement appears to show that Russia may switch to more attainable goals because of fierce resistance to its incursion. Figures released from the Kremlin have put the number of dead Russian troops at 1,300 since the beginning of the invasion on February 24, 2022. NATO has put the estimated Russian death-toll at 7,000-15,000. Russian state news posted then quickly deleted an article that suggested 10,000 troops had been killed. Regardless of the disparity Russian forces have encountered huge losses. To mobilize manpower, Putin has appealed to foreign fighters from Syria, as well as private mercenaries, to assist Russia in its invasion.
Ukraine has accused Russian forces of taking Ukrainian citizens as hostages and sending them into Russia in a bid to get Ukraine to surrender. Russia has denied the claims and has said it is evacuating thousands of civilians of their own will.
Policy Analysis
Considering their setbacks, there is growing concern that Russia will turn to using chemical or nuclear weapons to break the stalemate its forces are currently in. Some members of congress have suggested that if Russia used either nuclear or chemical weapons in Ukraine and the effects of such weapons made their way into NATO states, it would be considered an attack on the alliance and force a response. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island stated that “If a nuclear device is detonated, and the radiation goes into a neighboring country, that could very well be perceived as an attack against NATO”. President Biden, also on Friday after an emergency NATO summit, warned that were Russia to use chemical weapons it “would trigger a response in kind”.
President Biden last week went to Europe for a round of talks with allies, and to meet with refugees and US troops in Poland. Biden announced the US would take in up to 100,000 Ukrainians and provide an additional $1billion in food, medicine, water and other aid to Ukranian refugees fleeing the war. The president added that he would push for Russia to be removed from the G-20 group and not be allowed to attend the upcoming summit in Indonesia in October. He also issued a call for Putin’s removal.
Photo taken from: The Times of Israel
(click or tap to enlargen)
Russia’s economy continues to suffer because of sanctions. it is expected to contract 15% in 2022, leaving its GDP back where it was 15 years ago. Even more than the immediate hit of sanctions, Russia’s economy will probably continue to suffer years into the future as an increased exodus of educated and middle class Russians leave the country. This is happening at the same time as foreign companies continue to end or postpone business ties with Russia. Its relations in the region and exports with neighboring Eastern European states are also likely to suffer for years to come.
Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was prepared to pledge that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO in a bid to broker a peace deal with Russia. So far Putin has rejected calls for dialogue between the two countries.
Also, in a criticized move, President Zelensky announced that Eleven Ukrainian political parties would be suspended because of their links and sympathies to Russia. One party held 44 seats in the 450 seat parliament. He also stated Kyiv would shut down three television networks that he claimed worked to spread Kremlin-funded propaganda and signed a decree to unite all Ukrainian national TV channels into one platform. Though some have criticized his actions, Zelensky claims these measures were necessary in light of their anguished situation.
Congress Addresses Use Of Controversial Forced Arbitration Clauses In Two Bills
Congress Addresses Use Of Controversial Forced Arbitration Clauses In Two Bills
Civil Rights Policy Brief #185 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | March 21, 2022
Header photo taken from: Forbes
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Shack News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On March 17, 2022 the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 963. The bill is known as the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act. The bill passed by a 222 – 209 vote. Introduced by Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) the bill will ban the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses for consumers, employees and small businesses involved in legal disputes. The bill would apply to all kinds of workplace and consumer disputes that have become routine in consumer and worker contracts.
This bill follows a bill signed by President Joe Biden on March 3, 2022. That bill, known as the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, would amend the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to make pre – dispute arbitration agreements for sexual assault and sexual harassment claims invalid and unenforceable. There was bipartisan support for this bill as it passed the House of Representatives by a 335 – 97 vote and passed the Senate by a voice vote.
While the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 has become law the FAIR Act now moves to the Senate where its future there is uncertain. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
According to the Economic Policy Institute companies that have forced arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers and employees have created a significant problem for consumers and employees who want to pursue their disputes against large corporations.
While arbitration laws in states and in foreign countries vary, a typical situation begins when the consumer or employee is first presented with the terms governing the transaction for a consumer and the terms of employment for an employee. Many of these agreements often contain a contractual clause that obligates the consumer or the employee to settle any disputes they may have through an arbitration hearing. For a consumer, an arbitration clause will usually prohibit the consumer from pursuing their dispute in court or as part of a class action.
For an employee, the arbitration clause will prohibit the employee from pursuing employment disputes, discrimination claims and a number of other employment issues in court. The only recourse these parties would have is to pursue their claim in an arbitration proceeding. Oftentimes a consumer or employee would be unable to have this clause removed from their contract or agreement as companies have made the contract a “take it or leave it” situation. A consumer or employee simply clicks “Agree” or signs the contract with the forced arbitration clause in order to continue with the transaction or continue employment.
But when a situation arises and the consumer or employee find themselves in the middle of a dispute, the party has no choice but to go through the arbitration process. The process is flawed because protections that are often utilized in court are not used in arbitration proceedings. Sometimes the arbitrator is chosen by the company which raises a number of conflict of interest issues. Or, the party is told that the hearing is informal and so parties do not bring a lawyer who might help protect them at the hearing. The arbitrator simply listens to both sides, sometimes even without a court reporter, and then issues a decision. Sometimes that decision is simply issued without a written report that lists the reasons for the decision. And, some arbitration clauses are binding which means that the decision of the arbitrator is not appealable. Consumers and employees are forced into a closed session which can be intimidating because the hearing is usually put together by the large corporation alone.
Photo taken from: The Trial Lawyer Magazine
(click or tap to enlargen)
The arbitration bills that Congress considered this month seeks to change the secrecy and one – sidedness that arbitration hearings have become. The rationale of these two bills is that people with legitimate disputes against large corporations should be permitted to have their claims heard in open court. This will allow evidence to be introduced in a transparent public forum where a jury can decide instead of having relevant information suppressed behind closed doors. And it will allow for any decisions made to be supported by reason and evidence that is put to paper instead of decisions in a closed session that may be arbitrary.
A significant benefit from these bills would be in the cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment in employment cases. Employees who were the victim of sexual assault and sexual harassment and who then were forced to pursue their claims in forced arbitration often found that companies could easily hide the instances of sexual misconduct. This did not stop the incidents of sexual misconduct but only created an atmosphere where the sexual misconduct was repeated and then covered up again. The bill passed by Congress directly addresses those situations and effectively bars the use of forced mandatory arbitration in sexual misconduct cases and allows people to now pursue a sexual harassment claim in open court. There it can now publicly hold the offending company or employer responsible.
However, the second bill, the FAIR Act still needs to be passed by the Senate. This bill is broader in that it would apply to more than just sexual misconduct cases. It would apply to nearly all consumer and employment disputes such as labor, antitrust and civil rights disputes.
If the arguments supporting the bill to end forced arbitration in sexual harassment cases are valid – more open and transparent hearings, the availability of legal protections in court and no forfeit of claims and ability to pursue them freely – then those same arguments also apply to the FAIR Act and why it needs to be passed, too. The FAIR Act would be restoring rights to workers and consumers and allow them to have their day in court to plead the harms they may have suffered. Large corporations should no longer be allowed to bypass the court system and deprive millions of Americans of a fair hearing on important situations that affect their everyday lives. The bill holding forced arbitration clauses for sexual misconduct unenforceable has now been passed.
The companion bill holding forced arbitration clauses unenforceable for all consumer and employment agreements should be enacted into law, too. Instead of letting an arbitrator decide these important disputes, it should be up to the courts decide. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) – report and criticisms of the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employee contracts.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – article from non – profit group urging end to forced arbitration clauses.
Administration, Members of Congress Try to Make Equal Pay Day Meaningful
Administration, Members of Congress Try to Make Equal Pay Day Meaningful
Social Justice Policy Brief #36 | By: Stephen Thomas | March 25, 2022
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Time
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will issue a proposed regulation later in 2022 to prohibit federal agencies from seeking or relying on an applicant’s salary history in the hiring process unless the applicant raises the issue of her or his own volition. The administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris announced the upcoming rulemaking on Equal Pay Day, March 15.
Equal Pay Day marks the symbolic day to which U.S. women must work since New Year’s Day 2021 to earn the same as men earn for solely 2021.
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Senior Chief Deputy Whip from Illinois, summed up the pay disparity this way: “In the 21st century, it seems unbelievable that while women are the primary or co-breadwinners in six out of ten households; they still earn only 77 cents to every dollar paid to men,” Schakowsky said in a statement. “This picture is even worse for African American and Hispanic women, who earn 68 cents and 59 cents, respectively, for every dollar men are paid. Women face pay discrimination throughout their lives, and it follows them into retirement with lower pensions and Social Security benefits because they earned lower wages than they deserved.”
Policy Analysis
The upcoming OPM rule is consistent with President Biden’s executive order dated June 25, 2021, which addressed pay gaps based on gender as well as race.
The rationale is this: If women and minorities are paid less for the same work, then using a previous employer’s salary as a basis for a new salary offer prolongs the inequity.
OPM’s rule, if it survives the administrative process and becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations, would affect federal employment, not private sector hiring. To implement a similar law for the private sector, Congress would need to act.
Congress tried. Democratic U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 117th Congress—it was not the first time she introduced the bill—and the measure passed the House on April 15, 2021, by a vote of 217-210. U.S. Rep. Brian K. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania was the only House Republican to vote for it. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington introduced the bill in the Senate where on June 8, 2021, the measure failed to achieve the three-fifths majority required to bring the bill to the floor. No Senate Republicans voted for it.
“While I am proud the House swiftly passed the Paycheck Fairness Act earlier this year, I was disappointed it failed in the Senate at the hands of a Republican filibuster,” DeLauro said in a statement. “Nonetheless, I am committed to continuing this fight until the day we finally make Equal Pay Day a thing of the past.”
The Paycheck Fairness Act addressed discrimination based on sex, which includes, according to a congressional summary of the legislation, “pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.”
The summary goes on to point out that the act also “…limits an employer’s defense that a pay differential is based on a factor other than sex to only bona fide job-related factors in wage discrimination claims, enhances nonretaliation prohibitions, and makes it unlawful to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver prohibiting the employee from disclosing information about the employee’s wages. The bill also increases civil penalties for violations of equal pay provisions.”
“Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay. The wage gap is even greater for most women of color.”
Photos taken from: The U.S. Census Bureau
(click or tap to enlargen)
The administration on March 15 announced additional steps to close the gender gap in federal employment:
- Vice President Harris would host a virtual summit attended by “partners” nationwide who are doing all they can to stem the gender pay gap.
- To address federal contractors, President Biden directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council “to consider enhancing pay equity and transparency, including by limiting or prohibiting federal contractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ and employees’ existing or past compensation when making employment decisions, and appropriate accountability measures.”
- The Labor Department issued a directive that would remind federal contractors of their obligation to conduct “pay equity audits [to] address and prevent pay disparities based on gender, race, or ethnicity.”
When OPM issues its proposed salary history regulation in the Federal Register, the federal government will accept public comments for a prescribed period. Even if the proposal becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations—with amendments or “as is”—there is no guarantee that it would not be challenged in the federal courts.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Administration’s Equal Pay Day 2022 Announcement
Paycheck Fairness Act Congressional Outcome
Society for Human Resource Management Opposes Paycheck Fairness Act
Paycheck Fairness Act (shrm.org)
Chamber of Commerce Opposes Paycheck Fairness Act
National Committee on Pay Equity Advocates Ending the Gender Pay Equity Gap
National Committee on Pay Equity NCPE (pay-equity.org)
Department of Labor Pay Equity Audit Directive
COVID 19: The Great Unmasking
COVID 19: The Great Unmasking
Health and Gender Policy Brief #149 | By: Alexandra Ellis | March 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: Grist
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Damian Dovarganes / AP
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Since March 10, 2022, nearly all Americans can go without their masks indoors per new Center Disease Control guidance. Nearly for the entirety of the pandemic, different guidance has been given about masks – which has led to a lot of confusion and misinformation. Local, state, and federal government look to the CDC for guidance on how and when to guide their citizens on mask mandates.
At the same time, the anti-mask and medical freedom movement stormed city council meetings demanding the end of masks and emergency orders requiring them. Now, as states forgo COVID related restrictions, schools, workplaces, and shopping centers are allowing individuals to unmask. From this guidance, a lot of people are asking the question if this new guidance means masks over? If so, is this again a premature move by the CDC or are people just tired of wearing masks?
Policy Analysis
The CDC’s March 10, 2022, guidance outlines a complicated criteria for unmasking communities. The guidance is based on community data outsourced from local, state, and federal offices that track the health and wellbeing of the community. COVID – 19 numbers have dramatically dropped since the surge of the Omicron variant at the end of January 2022. A lot of people were initially confused by the community data structure.
On the CDC COVID – 19 Community Levels website, there is local and state guidance on masking and unmasking. The map data tool is supposed to guide health officials and individuals to consider “current information about COVID-19 hospitalizations in the community, as well as the potential for strain on the local health system and COVID-19 cases in the community, when making decisions about community prevention strategies and individual behaviors.” The tool comprises geographic data that suggests low to high risk of community infection. The legend defines green is low, yellow is medium, and red as high.
Some health officials criticize this system. Even low risk of infection stills means there is a chance of getting the infection. Even with three doses of mRNA vaccine, there is still a risk of catching the inflection- termed breakthrough cases. Even though most Americans are vaccinated today, there are still people who are either vaccine hesitant, individuals who have not received a second shot, or those who are ineligible. Vaccines are still not approved for children between the ages of zero to five. Other individuals with immune disorders cannot be vaccinated as well. Additionally, even if those who are categorized as high-risk of severe disease – who are vaccinated – may still be facing a substantial danger of getting COVID.
The question becomes if we are unmasking too soon. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great camaraderie of wearing masks to prevent the spread. Individuals across the country declined vacations, and visits to grandchildren to prevent infecting at risk family members. Grocery stores and other essential services in the community even assigned specific shopping hours for people at high-risk of infection.
Photo taken from: The Guardian
(click or tap to enlargen)
In the new community guidance, the CDC emphasizes that “Communities and individuals should also make decisions based on whether they are at high risk for severe disease and take into account inequities in access to prevention strategies.” With this guidance, governments are lifting masking mandates but allowing businesses and other organizations to take an individual approach. We are seeing states like New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont lifting emergency guidelines county by county and schools are no longer requiring some staff and students to wear masks in the classroom. However some individuals are sticking with masks and only taking them off where the location requires vaccine passport – like in Burlington, VT, and Portland, ME.
In some communities like Anchorage, Alaska – where the last 30-day emergency guideline was passed in November 2021 – another mask mandate might be impossible for the city to pass. The last emergency guideline was met with tremendous pushback as exemplified by two weeks of angry public testimony. Individuals crashed the city council meeting wearing Stars of David on their chest and compared masking mandates to Nazi Germany policies of genocide. They screamed at the city council members, and some threw themselves on the floor of the council floor. They did this in the name of medical freedom.
The CDC’s new guidelines feels like a victory for the medical freedom movement. Doubters of vaccine and mask mandates and believers of COVID – 19 misinformation have held to the command that it is their body and their choice – disregarding CDC guidance. The movement for medical freedom disregards inequities in access to prevention strategies and some scholars suggest is motivated by white supremacy.
However, this new guidance is not a win for medical freedom advocates. It comes at a time where statics suggest a down tick in COVID infections as the Omicron surge passes. Some epidemiologists suggest this new guidance signals we are entering a new stage of the pandemic where it transitions to an endemic – where COVID becomes something we learn to live with rather than emergency. However, people are still dying from COVID infections every day and other epidemiologists are still concerned about the risk of new variants. It is hard to say if we are demasking too soon but is clear that state and local city councils are lifting mandates.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
To keep informed about COVID – 19 guidance check CDC guidelines regularly. COVID- 19 Community guidance and tool can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/guidance.html. The map tool on this website will lead you to your local government page to check emergency COVID mandates, and other suggestions from local governments.
To see what epidemiologists are saying about COVID – 19 pandemic and trends go to Harvard School of Public Health Resource Page created for and by epidemiologists: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/coronavirus/.
To see what decisions you should make your family concerning masking see article by John Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/how-families-can-approach-the-great-unmasking.
To learn more about the medical freedom movement see Peter Holz’ article on the intersection between Medical Freedom and White Supremacy in the United States: https://www.jci.org/articles/view/149072.
To see an example of the Medical Freedom movement crashing a city council meeting, check out this New York times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/us/anchorage-alaska-mask-mandate-covid.html.
To support the continuation of masking policies go to the American Hospital Association’s campaign website where you can download a social media toolkit for supporting masking mandates in your local communities: https://www.aha.org/wearamask.
New IPCC Report Indicts Failed Climate Leadership Around the World
New IPCC Report Indicts Failed Climate Leadership Around the World
Environment Policy Brief #138 | By: Todd J. Broadman | March 23, 2022
Header photo taken from: The United Nations
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: IPCC / Denis Onyodi
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The latest Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report has been published; it is the sixth set of “assessment reports” since its foundation in 1988. The previous set was published in 2013-14. UN secretary-general António Guterres described the report as “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.” Although world leaders have committed to actions that would contain global temperature rise to 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre-industrial levels, with the current rate of emissions, latest projections put the earth on track for a temperature rise of 3°C (5.4°F) rise by the end of the century.
If these projections are realized, 50-75% of the global population could be exposed to periods of “life-threatening climatic conditions” due to extreme heat and humidity. Currently, 3.3 to 3.6 billion people reside in places “highly vulnerable to climate change.” Overall, these well-researched trends “are leading away from, rather than toward, sustainable development.”
An important distinction highlighted in the report is that there are both “hard” and “soft” limits. On the one hand, hard limits mean that no amount of human intervention can make a difference. When warm water coral reefs completely disappear, for example, there is no “fix” or “adaptation” to be made. On the other hand, soft limits include obstacles like insufficient finance and poor planning, which could be addressed through more inclusive governance. Limited fresh water in small islands, as rising seas and extreme weather can mean sea water contamination of fresh water is a hard limit; no amount of adaptation will bring low-lying islands back. By 2050, more than a billion people located in low-lying cities and settlements will be at risk from “coastal-specific climate hazards.”
Climate related diseases will take the lives of hundreds of thousands of humans. When we reach an increase of 1.5C, 9% of all species will be at very high risk of extinction, at 2C that percentage increases to 10% and at 3C to 12%. Human activity now shapes 70 percent of the ice-free surface of the globe. Nature is running out of places to hide with only a remaining 15 percent protected from development. With longer fire seasons and extended droughts, even that which remains is at risk.
As the oceans warm, marine species are being forced out of their natural habitats and are migrating poleward by warming waters. The report states that low-oxygen (hypoxia) zones are increasing in both size and number around the world “with growing impacts on fish species diversity and ecosystem functioning.” Fish may also be moving to deeper waters in response. The timing of significant marine events like phytoplankton blooms are also changing. Half a billion people depend on coral reefs and those reefs are dying due to ocean acidification. Calcifying organisms, such as mussels and oysters, are also at high risk of decline.
Policy Analysis
Socioeconomic status is closely linked to climate change vulnerability. The report found that across 92 developing countries, the poorest 40% of the population experienced losses from climate hazards that were 70% greater than the losses of people with average wealth. And each year 15 million more people will be living in extreme poverty conditions. They lack the resources to move or adapt. Many will lose their agricultural incomes and experience food and water insecurity, mostly in the continents of Africa and Asia.
Agricultural land that is currently used for growing crops and rearing livestock “will increasingly become climatically unsuitable,” which is even more alarming considering that crop productions declined nearly 10% (among four major crops) between 1850 and 2010. Land still stores more carbon than it emits each year, the report says. It stores around 3.5 tons of carbon and this is three-to-five times more than the amount stored by unextracted fossil fuels and four times more than what is currently in the atmosphere.
Photo taken from: Global Change (.gov)
(click or tap to enlargen)
Contributions from philosophers, anthropologists and other authors from many different disciplines are new to this report and draw upon the qualitative aspects of climate change. Not only is economic inequality linked to increasing temperatures, but also higher hospital admissions for mood and behavioral disorders, anxiety, depression, and acute stress.
Actionable process to be followed?
Whereas 29% of electricity is generated by renewable energy and this is increasing at the rate of 7% annually, only about 11.2 percent of global heating, power, and transportation energy comes from non-carbon sources. Overall energy usage growth exceeds the deployment of sustainable energy sources. For that reason alone, UN secretary-general António Guterres has placed all G20 governments on alert and asked they “dismantle their coal fleets.” Coal is the single biggest CO2, the source of 46% of global emissions.
Underlying this report is an economic model based on infinite growth, a model adopted by most of the world’s countries. That model is at odds with the availability of energy and other material resources. If this model along with its consumption-driven societies do not alter course, the report’s high and medium risk scenarios are likely to be realized.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ authoritative knowledge on climate change, its causes, potential impacts and response options.
https://www.postcarbon.org/ provides individuals and communities with the resources needed to understand and respond to the interrelated ecological, economic, energy, and equity crises of the 21st century.
https://www.c2es.org/ advances strong policy and ambitious action to: reduce greenhouse gas emissions; promote and accelerate the clean energy transition.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/ produces and facilitates top-quality journalism about the energy transition.
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #148 | By: Inijah Quadri | March 20, 2022
Header photo taken from: Medical News Today
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Daily Beast
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 36 states, medicinal marijuana is permitted, and in 14, it is lawful to consume marijuana recreationally. On the subject of legalizing marijuana, this article examines papers published in top economic, public policy, and medical publications, concentrating on the health repercussions of cannabis legalization.
Our article examines the impacts of legalization on adult and adolescent cannabis users. The legalization of recreational cannabis use in the US has drastically cut the price of cannabis, increased its potency, and made it more available to consumers. As such, the regular use of cannabis should be monitored. Cannabis legalization and regulation necessitate the study of the health repercussions of these policy changes, and this knowledge should be used to design ways of regulating marijuana that minimize negative health effects.
There is strong evidence that where medicinal marijuana is permitted, alcohol-dependent individuals consume less alcohol. However, the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on other critical public health outcomes needs to be discussed. Research is being done, but additional data needs to be obtained, allowing us to make more solid findings.
Policy Analysis
Cannabis is known by many different names: dope, weed, marijuana, hemp. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, cannabis is the second most often used psychoactive drug in the United States after alcohol and before nicotine. Cannabis is most often used by adolescents and young adults. Cannabis, formerly seen as a deadly gateway drug, is now more widely accepted as a drug that can be used on its own. Recreational marijuana use is increasingly legal in more and more places throughout the world.
So is it good for the populace? Is marijuana a gateway drug that should be avoided, or is it a cure-all? In the last several months, numerous studies have been released demonstrating both the dangers and the advantages of the hemp plant and its various compounds.
Researchers recently released the results of a study, which indicated that cannabis users have increased sexual function and greater orgasms. A reduction in fear and guilt (as a result of cannabis use) can lead to better sex, according to the experts. To put it another way, those who consume alcohol or smoke marijuana may have better sex.
On the other hand, contrary to popular belief, cannabis usage can cause long-term cognitive decline, especially in children and adolescents whose brains are still growing. There is a negative impact on decision-making and cognitive abilities, as well as on the amount of time it takes to accomplish mental tasks. And the effects of such “drunkenness” might last for a long time.
Photo taken from: Nature
(click or tap to enlargen)
Another European research study, published in 2019, found that everyday marijuana smokers are three times more likely to suffer from psychotic episodes than those who do not use the drug. Another group of researchers found an eightfold increase in psychoses.
Advocates of legalizing cannabis argue that making it available at state-run dispensaries, as well as limiting the amount of THC in the medicine and requiring additives to be clearly labeled, will significantly lessen the substance’s health risks.
Proponents also argue that removing the stigma associated with being a cannabis user will allow for more open access to treatment and preventative programs. Without fear of repercussions from the law and/or public stigmatization, people might learn about the dangers of cannabis use and discuss their concerns with trained professionals who can help them.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Addiction (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.15764)
Di Forti M, Quattrone D, Freeman TP, Tripoli G, Gayer-Anderson C, Quigley H, Rodriguez V, Jongsma HE, Ferraro L, La Cascia C, La Barbera D, Tarricone I, Berardi D, Szöke A, Arango C, Tortelli A, Velthorst E, Bernardo M, Del-Ben CM, Menezes PR, Selten JP, Jones PB, Kirkbride JB, Rutten BP, de Haan L, Sham PC, van Os J, Lewis CM, Lynskey M, Morgan C, Murray RM; EU-GEI WP2 Group. The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 May;6(5):427-436. Doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30048-3. Epub 2019 Mar 19. PMID: 30902669; PMCID: PMC7646282. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30902669/)
Gahr M, Ziller J, Keller F, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C. Increasing Proportion of Cannabinoid-Associated Psychotic Disorders: Results of a Single-Center Analysis of Treatment Data From 2011 to 2019. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Nov/Dec;40(6):642-645. Doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001278. PMID: 33009227. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33009227/)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states)
Roman, Pablo & Ortiz-Rodriguez, Ana & Romero-Lopez, Ana & Rodriguez-Arrastia, Miguel & Ropero-Padilla, Carmen & Sánchez-Labraca, Nuria & Rueda-Ruzafa, Lola. (2022). The Influence of Cannabis and Alcohol Use on Sexuality: An Observational Study in Young People (18–30 Years). Healthcare. 10. 71. 10.3390/healthcare10010071. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357478672_The_Influence_of_Cannabis_and_Alcohol_Use_on_Sexuality_An_Observational_Study_in_Young_People_18-30_Years)
Subbaraman M. S. (2014). Can cannabis be considered a substitute medication for alcohol?. Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 49(3), 292–298. (https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt182)
Supreme Court Gerrymandering Ruling Opens Door To Potential Redistricting Problem
Supreme Court Gerrymandering Ruling Opens Door To Potential Redistricting Problem
Civil Rights Policy Brief #184 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | March 11, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Tim Ryan Williams / Vox
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On November 4, 2021 in North Carolina the state legislature adopted a congressional map which gave the Republican Party in the state a huge advantage – it seemed likely that Republicans would win ten of the fourteen available congressional seats in the state despite total votes cast in state elections being evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project graded the map an “F” because of its extreme partisan bias in drawing the map. North Carolina voters challenged the map in court and the North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated the map and directed a state trial court to lead the efforts to create a new state map. Experts were brought in and a new map was drawn which was upheld by the North Carolina Supreme Court. State Republican legislators appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and requested that the original map drawn by the state legislature be used instead of the map approved by the state trial court.
In Pennsylvania, a similar situation developed due to the drawing of the state congressional map. Because of the 2020 Census, Pennsylvania lost a congressional seat and had to draw a map with seventeen congressional districts in the state. The Republican led legislature drew a map that had nine likely Democratic districts and eight likely Republican districts. However, even with that one seat advantage the Democratic Governor vetoed the plan. A group of Pennsylvania voters brought a lawsuit that urged the adoption of a second map, known as the “Carter Plan,” which would add one more Democratic leaning district and merge two Republican leaning districts into one district.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later intervened and directed a state trial court to submit a report for a redistricting plan. The trial court recommended the original map drawn by the state legislature. However, the state supreme court ignored the recommendation and adopted the “Carter Plan.” This time, a candidate for a congressional district, brought another lawsuit because he claimed there was no certainty as to what map will be used and which district he will represent and so he did not know how to proceed with his campaign. After being denied at the trial court level, an appeal was made to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 7, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court in Toth v. Chapman and Moore v. Harper issued orders denying a writ of injunction and application for a stay of the Pennsylvania and North Carolina cases. Since the orders issued by the Supreme Court were only about rejecting the petition to temporarily suspend the use of the new maps in each state the Supreme Court did not actually rule on the legal arguments put forth by the petitioners. The dissents issued in the case only hinted at what might be forthcoming in a future gerrymandering case. Nevertheless, this move effectively rejected for the time being Republican requests to use the congressional maps that they had preferred for the 2022 election. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The move taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in the North Carolina and Pennsylvania gerrymandering cases was a rebuke to Republican efforts at gerrymandering maps in key swing states. But the orders generated alot of discussion because of dissents written by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh that focused on a unique legal theory that could have far reaching consequences in the future.
When the plaintiffs in North Carolina and Pennsylvania brought their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court they argued their position because of the word “legislature” in the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. Article I, Section 4 provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” A strict reading of this clause would probably only permit the state legislature of each state to decide on how a map of congressional districts in the state should be drawn and how a final map would look. Because of this unique position of only having a state legislature – and no one else – decide on how congressional districts would be drawn the plaintiffs in each of these cases are looking to exclude other participants such as the Governor and the state trial courts (and by extension, state independent redistricting commissions) from having a say in how maps are drawn.
This is a very dangerous road to go down because it will result in state legislators drawing and manipulating state and congressional district maps without being accountable to anyone. The process of having only the state legislature draw a new state map had gotten so bad that a number of states decided on creating state independent redistricting commissions to do the job in order to leave state politicians out of it.
Photo taken from:
Rolling Stone
(click or tap to enlargen)
The intent was to reduce the amount of partisan bias that would go into drawing a state map because politicians had an incentive to draw a map that would ensure their continued re-election and keep their preferred political party in power even if the populace might have preferred the other political party. If the plaintiffs have their way with their legal argument, all of the changes and safeguards that have been implemented through the years would be discarded and it would be back to square one where only the state legislatures again would be responsible for drawing the state map. There would be no limitations on the kind of gerrymandering that a state legislature could do.
The Supreme Court should be wary about going down this road. Instead of reading words narrowly and giving words a strict interpretation without looking at what unintended consequences might occur, the Court should look at the progress that has been made in making redistricting more transparent.
However, Justice Alito and his conservative colleagues have signaled in their unneccessary dissent (known as the “shadow docket” when orders and/or dissents are issued that lack the full briefing and oral arguments that a usual case would receive) that they would be open to this line of thinking in future gerrymandering cases. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – Redistricting Commissions – info page on how state independent redistricting commissions are comprised by states that use them.
Campaign Legal Center – info page from non – profit group fighting gerrymandering.
Brennan Center for Justice – info page on what gerrymandering is and the problems it creates.
High Profile Hostage: Free Brittney Griner and Make Some Noise About It
High Profile Hostage: Free Brittney Griner and Make Some Noise About It
Foreign Policy Brief #149 | By: Randy Wyrick | March 15, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
American basketball superstar Brittney Griner is a political prisoner in Russia. To see her plight any other way is to fail to see it at all.
The Russians claim that, at the airport for her trip back to the U.S. (and who wouldn’t want to leave Russia) they found vape cartridges in her luggage. The Russians unlawfully detained Griner on Feb. 17, as they were warming up their tank engines for what they wrong-headedly believed would be a springtime romp through Ukraine. She was celebrated in Russia for seven seasons. Now she’s their political prisoner.
Jonathan Franks, an attorney who has negotiated the release of prisoners in similar straits, is livid that western media parrots Russia’s allegations against Griner as facts. They’re likely not, and says Griner’s detention has the “hallmarks of a wrongful and arbitrary detention.” Like something out of a Terrorism for Dummies manual, the Russians paraded Griner in front of cameras. Her mug shot was displayed like some kind of hunting trophy. She’s facing decades in a Russian prison.
“I think that it is unlikely that Ms. Griner will get a fair trial,” Franks said, “because nobody gets a fair trial in Russia.”
Along with Griner, Russia is holding two other Americans as political prisoners – Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. Russians have held Reed since August 2019. Around the globe, hostile governments are unlawfully detaining more than 50 Americans.
Policy Analysis
Why was she in Russia?
Griner, 31, has earned Olympic gold twice, an NCAA title at Baylor, a WNBA title, and is a seven-time all star. The WNBA’s 2020 collective bargaining agreement raises salaries up to half a million, a far cry from the tens of millions NBA stars are paid.
So, Griner and about 70 other WNBA stars play in other parts of the world during the offseason. Griner earned $1.5 million per season with her Russian team. The WNBA says everyone but Griner had already left Russia and Ukraine before the invasion. However, news of her captivity did not break in the U.S. until March 5, when global economic sanctions dropped on Russia.
Who knows what to do?
Jason Rezaian knows exactly what this is like. Rezaian was the Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief when he was taken prisoner July 22, 2014, charged by Iran with espionage and “propaganda against the establishment.” In a closed-door Iranian trial he was declared guilty. He was finally released January 16, 2016.
He urges people to make some noise, and make it now. He says maintaining “diplomatic niceties” about Griner will not get her released.
Photo taken from: First Sportz
The NBA, one of the world’s most powerful sports leagues, owns the WNBA, Griner’s employer, Franks says the leagues’ reactions should be more “robust.”
Griner is the WNBA’s equivalent of Lebron James. Imagine the firestorm that would follow what amounts to a political abduction if it were James and not Griner, a black lesbian.
While working for the Washington Post in Tehran, Rezaian made countless trips in and out of Iran.
“I never had any problems until I did,” he says.
It’s possible Russia targeted Griner as leverage against the United States and the sanctions … in other words, a political prisoner. Rezaian says that, like him, Griner’s detention may turn out to be a marathon, not a sprint.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Sports Journalist Tamryn Spriull has launched a petition on Change.org, More than 50,000 people have signed it so far.
Contact WNBA Commissioneer Cathy Engelbert at leaguepasssupport@wnba.com
Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas) is working with the U.S. State Department to determine a way forward to secure Brittney Griner’s release.
Contact his Washington, D.C. office at:
114 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Phone: 202-225-2231
Profiles of White Supremacist Groups in America
Profiles of White Supremacist Groups in America
Social Justice Policy Brief #35 | By: Erika Shannon | March 14, 2022
Header photo taken from: NBC News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Southern Poverty Law Center
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The United States is attempting to heal in many ways since Donald Trump’s term as our President. One of the effects of a Trump Presidency in America was the rise in membership in many right-wing hate groups. Members of these groups took the former President’s silence on their views as silent agreement on their behavior , and ran with it. Right wing groups gained new members and new momentum. The boldness of these groups became evident on January 6, 2021, when members of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and several other extremist groups attempted to storm the Capitol Building and stop the counting of electoral votes for the 2020 election.
In order to figure out a way to eradicate hate groups in the U.S., it is important to understand the demographics of these groups. While the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimates there are over 733 hate groups across the U.S., we’ve compiled information on three of these groups whose names have frequently been in the media over the past several years. We wanted to know who seeks membership in them, where are the primary states of membership, and since Trump has left office, do these right-wing extremist organizations still have the momentum they did at the end of his term?
L-R: The Proud Boys (est. 2016), The Oath Keepers (est. 2009), and The Rise Above Movement (est. 2017). Two of these hate groups formed in the wake of Trump-era politics.
Photos taken from: Southern Poverty Law Center, The Anti-Defamation League, and The Conversation
(click or tap to enlargen)
Proud Boys
The Proud Boys were established during the 2016 presidential election season by VICE Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. According to SPLC, the Proud Boys are self-described as “Western chauvinists,” and frequently deny any connection to the racist “alt-right.” However, the group is known for spouting white nationalist and anti-Muslim rhetoric. They also believe the media pushes an anti-white agenda, and white people are the “true minority.” There are four degrees of Proud Boy Membership, and the first degree is simply to declare the phrase, “I am a Western chauvinist, and I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.” The second degree involves being beaten until you can yell out the names of five breakfast cereals to demonstrate adrenaline control. The third degree is getting a Proud Boys tattoo, and to enter the fourth degree you must get in a fight for the cause.
The Proud Boys have 119 active chapters across 46 states that are nationally recognized by the organization. There are also international chapters in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and the Philippines. Their colors are primarily black and yellow. While the Proud Boys have not made much waves since the January 6th Insurrection last year, they have been tied to anti-mask and anti-vaccine activism. This includes showing up at school board meetings and related protests and rallies to show opposition to mask and vaccine mandates.
Oath Keepers
The Oath Keepers are an anti-government, right-wing political organization whose mission is to defend their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They have associations with the militia movement, which believes that the federal government is part of a conspiracy to strip Americans of their natural rights and freedoms. They were founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, an Army veteran, and have approximately 5,000 or so members, though they claim to have upwards of 30,000 members. The group only obeys commands that do not violate their “Declaration of Orders.” Those orders have been outlined by the Anti-Defamation League and can be read here. The Oath Keepers respond and support local communities when law and order breaks down or when they feel law enforcement officers have overstepped their Constitutional bounds.
The efforts of the Oath Keepers, however, are not well intentioned by normal standards of society. They often promote disobedience to authority and put forth racist rhetoric. Their presence was seen when they confronted protesters at ANTIFA and Black Lives Matters rallies, and they took part in the January 6 capitol riot. Twelve members of the organization face conspiracy charges stemming from the January 6 insurrection. The group is large enough to pose a significant threat to society, though their disorganization may be their downfall when trying to assert their ideals.
Rise Above Movement
The Rise Above Movement is a white supremacist group based in Southern California, whose members wish to fight against a modern world corrupted by liberals, Jews, Muslims, and non-white immigrants. While the group began in Southern California, today’s membership is mostly online-only, and the group’s current leader, Robert Rundo, is living in Eastern Europe. They are a violent group, and members allegedly train to fight physical battles with their ideological foes. The Rise Above Movement refers to themselves as the “premier MMA club of the alt right” and often spout racist, anti-Semitic views and other acts of intolerance at events and online.
In recent years, membership has waned, and there is thought to be less than twenty active members in the group. Since several members were arrested in association with the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, the group has shifted their efforts to mostly online, with less public appearances since the 2019 arrests and charges. While they do not have power in numbers as other far-right groups do, they are a violent group and that in and of itself could be cause for concern.
It is clear that far right hate groups have been in the spotlight far more than in year’s prior, and that was in part due to the rhetoric of former President Trump. In order for America to continue to renew itself and purge itself of the hate that built up over the course of four years of the Trump administration, we must find ways to disassemble these white supremacist groups. Understanding membership and ideals of these groups can help to steer people clear of them and their toxic ideologies; and hopefully, help stop the spread of hate in the United States.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
To get involved with the Anti-Defamation League’s movement to Fight Hate for Good, visit their webpage.
To view an interactive map of hate groups across the U.S., visit the SPCL’s Hate Map.