Virginia removes abortion safeguards and threatens free speech – The Christian Institute

The Governor of Virginia has signed into law two progressive Bills on abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The states new Reproductive Health Protection Act rolls back safeguards for unborn children. Mothers will no longer have to be offered an ultrasound and an opportunity to hear their childs heartbeat at least 24 hours before going ahead with an abortion.

The state branded the protections medically unnecessary restrictions on womens healthcare.

During a debate on the legislation, Delegate Kathy Byron said the Act denies mothers complete information on what an abortion means, its consequences, its implications, its alternatives leading them to be less informed on one of the most important decisions that they ever make.

Roman Catholic Bishops Michael Burbidge and Barry Knestout said: Over the past eight years, abortions have decreased by 42% in Virginia. Tragically but undoubtedly, these changes to our state law will reverse that life-saving progress and increase the number of abortions.

The following day, the Governor also signed into law the Virginia Values Act, which claims to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Critics have warned the Bill threatens free speech.

Gregory Baylor, Senior Legal Counsel for religious liberty group Alliance Defending Freedom, previously said that the Act is a dangerous path which coerces uniformity of thought and speech on beliefs about marriage, sex, and gender.

He explained that laws elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes have a proven record of undermining both fairness and freedom for all citizens.

He highlighted similar US laws which have empowered the government to force people who willingly serve everyone to promote messages and participate in events that violate their faith or convictions.

Last month, female MPs in the UK spoke out against the silencing of women by transgender activists.

The SNPs justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry MP, said that Professor Selina Todd accused of being transphobic for challenging the narrative that transgenderism has been prevalent throughout history had been censored simply for asserting womens rights.

She added: If we allow bullies to triumph over free speech in one area of public discourse, we are giving them free reign to triumph over free speech in other areas of public discourse.

Jackie Doyle-Price MP commented that it is not at all transphobic to argue in favour of female-only spaces such as changing rooms.

Irish Govt follows GB to bring in DIY abortion

Poetry Library makes courageous stand for free speech

Academic branded transphobic for stating biological fact

Read more from the original source:

Virginia removes abortion safeguards and threatens free speech - The Christian Institute

[WEBINAR] Free Press on Campus and COVID-19: A Leadership Roundtable with Student Journalists – PEN America

Friday, April 24, 2020 | 2:30 pm 3:45 pm

An online forum hosted by PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program

This is PEN Americas third online forum in our webinar series, Free Speech & the Virtual Campus. More webinars will be announced.

As COVID-19 has shifted campuses online and media outlets have scrambled to cover the crisis, student press groups around the country have stepped up in enormous ways to serve their communities. Amid challenges with finances, staffing, printing, records access, and university staff communications, student journalist leaders continue to move their teams forward in support of an informed public.

Join PEN America and the Student Press Law Center in a roundtable with student press leaders from eight universities as we discuss ways to navigate this crisis and safeguard free expression and a free press in these turbulent and uncertain times.

REGISTER HERE

Mike Hiestand has been integral to the Student Press Law Centers (SPLC) success since 1989. He was an SPLC intern, its first legal fellow, and then served as full-time staff attorney from 19912003. Over the years, he has assisted about 16,000 student journalists and advisers. He currently works from the west coast on the SPLC hotline and related projects. In 201314, Hiestand traveled around the country with Mary Beth Tinker, teaching and speaking out on behalf of student press rights and free expression. Tinker Tour USA kicked off on Constitution Day at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The bus logged 15,595 miles across the American east coast, midwest and southeast speaking to more than 20,000 students and teachers at 58 stops, including schools, colleges, churches, a youth detention facility, courts, and several national conventions. In the spring of 2014, The Tinker Tour moved on to schools and events in the American west, midwest and southwest, as well as a stop in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Vancouver, Canada. Hiestand, who grew up in Alaska, graduated from Bartlett High School in Anchorage and went on to Marquette Universitys College of Journalism and Cornell Law School.

Read more:

[WEBINAR] Free Press on Campus and COVID-19: A Leadership Roundtable with Student Journalists - PEN America

Maury, the Maverick: Why one San Antonio mayor captured Trinity researchers’ attention – The Trinitonian

Illustration by Andrea Nebhut

Maury Maverick was the mayor of San Antonio from 19391941. Before that, he was a congressman for two terms. He practiced law in San Antonio, he formed and served as vice president of a lumber company, and he restored La Villita in downtown San Antonio.

But thats not why Jennifer Henderson, chair of the Department of Communication, finds him interesting.

I got interested in that topic when I was doing other research about the Jehovahs Witnesses and their free speech claims, which is research Ive been doing for a really long time, since graduate school, Henderson said. And I kept running across this incident that happened in San Antonio, where they were denied access to use the Municipal Auditorium.

While Henderson looked into this incident with the San Antonio Jehovahs Witness community and the auditorium, she found one mans name kept popping up: Maury Maverick.

HOW IT BEGAN

Henderson is a First Amendment Scholar, and as she described, much of her research has focused on Jehovahs Witnesses and their free speech claims.

However, she found that the incident concerning the Municipal Auditorium was about more than the Jehovahs Witness community in San Antonio.

The Communist Party requested to hold a rally at the Municipal Auditorium. And I think it was surprising to a lot of people that Maury Maverick said yes, that they could do this. And it didnt turn out so well. And so there were mobs of people who attacked the auditorium, Henderson said. So then, the Jehovahs Witnesses asked to use the Municipal Auditorium after that, and he was just like, no, were not going to go through this again.

Henderson saw four primary groups in San Antonio that Maverick interacted with: the Communist Party, the Jehovahs Witnesses (and other religious groups), women specifically Latina women and black people.

In the past three years, she has enlisted three students through the Mellon Initiative to write chapters about each group. Their research would be compiled into a book Maverick Rights: Mayor Maury Maverick and Free Speech in Wartime San Antonio which is now nearing its publication date.

THE RESEARCH

According to Henderson, Mavericks mayoral term was marked by his progressives values; though, today, his policies and interactions with his constituents may not be considered so progressive.

Maverick ultimately was not reelected because he was labeled a communist after he allowed that communist group access to the Municipal Auditorium.

But Hendersons book is not a biography of Maverick. Rather, it focuses on his interactions with minority communities in San Antonio: people with different political alignments, religious groups, non-white constituents and women.

Hendersons chapter focuses on Jehovahs Witnesses and other religious communities in San Antonio; Hunter Sosby, class of 2019, researched Mavericks interactions with the Communist Party; senior Simone Washingtons chapter is about the Black community in San Antonio; and senior Connie Laings chapter covers Mavericks reactions to his Latina constituents.

Each student who has worked with Henderson did so through the Mellon Initiative in consecutive summers: Sosby in 2017, Washington in 2018 and Laing in 2019.

For the most part, their research was archive-based. For Washington, that meant traveling between the archives in Coates Library on campus and the library at St. Phillips College.

Initially I started off doing a lot of in-house research at Trinity, but then I branched off, at Dr. Hendersons suggestion, to St. Phillips library on their campus on the East Side of San Antonio. She said something very important: If I was writing about Blackness, then I should definitely be reading it from Black authors, Washington said.

Over this past summer, Laing and Henderson made a trip to Austin to see the full collection of Mavericks archives that is housed at the University of Texas.

It was great because he had saved everything from that time period. And so whether or not it was like a banner or a poster from his election, or whether it was a speech where he had, like, crossed out all the things he was going to say like seeing those original documents, Henderson said.

MAVERICK, HIMSELF

In her research about Mavericks connection to San Antonios Chili Queens, Laing found the former mayor to be a divisive character.

He spoke out about poll tax politically. He did not think it was good I mean, the poll tax was created to basically disenfranchise poor people, mainly, though it targeted poor minority racial groups, such as black people, Hispanic people, Laing said. The question becomes, did he do it for selfish reasons, which was to get the poor white voting base, or was it that he believed the poll tax was this disenfranchisement tool? And that becomes a really complex question.

Washington agreed that Mavericks character isnt as easy as saying, yes, hes racist, or no, hes not.

There was no conclusive answer. Like most things, it was kind of complex. A lot of people see him as a racist because of the language he used to describe Black people, but in other ways, he kind of opened the spaces to enter in the political arena, Washington said.

Washington described Maverick as benevolently racist, taking a more paternal role as a politician, though he did speak out against some things that were widely supported at the time, like lynching.

When Maverick was a U.S. representative, the illegality of lynching hadnt been made official at the federal level, and Maverick was one of few to advocate for anti-lynching legislation.

He, in really strong words, was putting down this hateful practice, which was rare of a white Southern congressman at the time, Washington said.

Though Maverick was progressive, not all of his actions as a politician would ring as progressive by todays standards, including what Laing described as egregious speech towards Latina women.

He was a new leader, a progressive, definitely one of the most progressive Southerners at the time. This is the late 1930s, Henderson said. And so, in many ways, hes a, you know, a strange bird when it comes to like Southern politics at the time, but hes very much of his time.

And thats whats important for this research group. Maverick extended his political platform to disenfranchised communities:

Theres really this political machine in San Antonio that he challenges, Henderson said. And there are alliances in ways that we really dont think about today in terms of democratic politics. Its all of that together. Hes not always making choices that are in a progressive sense the way we would consider them today. But at the time, he was definitely seen as a progressive.

PLANS FOR PUBLICATION

The book, which Henderson hopes to have ready to publish in the fall, is nearly done, though she said she may add a chapter depending on extra research done this summer.

This summer, Im doing a separate project with a first-year student on Emma Tenayuca who was a communist leader and labor rights activist in San Antonio. And that may end up being an additional chapter related to this, Henderson said. What that is really based on is what kind of language shes using in protests and how people are pushing back against both the language and assembly rights.

Henderson has worked with students before, but this is her first book in which shes collaborated with students.

Ive done a lot of collaborative projects with academics over my years. And the students who are working on these projects are academics, right? And they are professionals that are excellent writers and great researchers, Henderson said. And one of the most important things is that we recognize it doesnt really matter that theyre new scholars, but that they are scholars as well.

For Washington, the research has helped her better contextualize the city shes lived in for the past four years.

I think investigating what the early 20th century looked like for San Antonio gave me kind of the backdrop by which I can understand San Antonio currently, Washington said. And thats that it is highly, highly segregated, and not by coincidence or by chance by systemic forces playing out decade after decade.

Henderson agreed.

What weve realized, as weve done more and more with this research, is how many of the issues and concerns of the time still remain in relationship to speech and press, Henderson said.

With additional reporting by Marielle Sambilay

Post Views: 627

The rest is here:

Maury, the Maverick: Why one San Antonio mayor captured Trinity researchers' attention - The Trinitonian

The Trump campaign’s frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment – Business Insider – Business Insider

President Donald Trump is a menace to the First Amendment.

His hostility to the White House press corps and the non-right-wing news media is well documented.

But while being rude to reporters and reflexively shouting "fake news" are effective tactics to make his base even less inclined to believe anything negative about Trump, they're trivial concerns compared to the speech-chilling lawsuits filed by his reelection campaign against media outlets both big and small.

These petty lawsuits accusing various outlets of libel have little chance of success, but they will drain resources from media organizations who have published or aired opinions and ads that are critical of the president.

And they will serve as warnings to every organization that a deep-pocketed presidential campaign is willing and able to bring the pain.

Trump's reelection campaign has filed suit against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times for publishing opinion pieces that they claim are libelous.

It "flies in the face of basic First Amendment doctrine," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a California lawyer who has worked on a number of high-profile free-speech cases, told The New York Times.

He added: "The complaint is attacking opinions where the authors are expressing their views based on widely reported facts."

Put simply, opinions are protected by the First Amendment. Even opinions that aren't 100% based in fact are protected by the First Amendment.

Libel, which requires "actual malice" that a deliberately false statement was published to hurt a person's reputation, is not protected by the First Amendment. And that's a good thing for Trump, because he's been well known to say patently false things about people with the intent of disparaging their reputations.

Trump's latest salvo in his war on free expression is a suit filed by his campaign against the small television station WFJW, a northern Wisconsin NBC affiliate. The station had been airing an ad produced by Priorities USA, one of the largest and well-funded pro-Democratic Party super PACs.

In the ad, titled "Exponential Threat," a series of Trump clips are played over ominous music. Early in the ad, two clips from two different Trump recordings are played back to back: "The coronavirus this is their new hoax."

In reality, Trump never directly called the coronavirus a "hoax." He did regularly downplay the danger it posed, likening it to the flu, and even opined that it would just miraculously disappear. Trump's "hoax" comment was a reference to the Democrats' failed attempt to remove him from office through impeachment.

To Trump, that was a "hoax," just as Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the then burgeoning crisis was a "hoax." Is that dirty pool, or is that just politics?

"If this is the bar for what is a defamatory campaign ad then the vast majority of campaign ads are defamatory," Ken White, a California civil-liberties lawyer who blogs and tweets under the "Popehat" moniker, told Insider. White added: "Even arguably taking [words] out of context is absolutely routine. It is not a false statement of provable fact."

White says the Trump campaign's allegation of libel is a "nonsense argument" that is "performative" and "doesn't have much of a chance of succeeding in the long term."

But, he adds: "Even when a lawsuit is completely frivolous, it's ruinously expensive to defend. For most individuals and small businesses, it's completely impossible to afford. And even for a relatively moderate-sized business like a TV station, it can destroy it."

White thinks it's not a coincidence that the campaign chose to sue an individual TV station rather than the well-funded super PAC that produced it. He also thinks the fact that they chose Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won in 2016, was strategic: Wisconsin has no anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP Is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. They are the lawsuit equivalent of censorship by intimidation. Anti-SLAPP laws which vary from state to state allow defendants to request a motion to dismiss a frivolous suit before it bleeds them financially dry.

To recap: The Trump campaign is ignoring the big-money super PAC and is instead going after a small TV station in a state where there are no protections against bogus lawsuits like this.

These cash-draining suits come at a time when an already struggling industry is bleeding even more jobs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And while major corporate media outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have the resources to fight such suits, a small Midwestern TV affiliate surely does not.

Should this suit move forward in Wisconsin's legal system, it will send a chill up the spines of any modestly funded media outlet that wants to publish anything even a campaign ad that makes Trump look bad.

This goes beyond "fake news" insults; it is an intimidation tactic by the president designed to bring the media to heel by causing financial ruin in response to coverage he doesn't like.

There was an attempt at anti-SLAPP legislation at the federal level, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015. While it had bipartisan support of 30 members of Congress, it wasn't enough for the bill to make it out of committee. But this is a worthy law for Congress to take up, because it defends the First Amendment from deep-pocketed bad-faith litigants.

No one, not even Trump, should be able to sue free speech into submission.

Here is the original post:

The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider

Lansing cops brace for another ‘Operation Gridlock’ – City Pulse

Kyle Kaminski

FRIDAY, April 17 The Lansing Police Department plans to ramp up enforcement efforts should protests continue to involve social distancing violations and gridlock in the capital city.

Some officials in Lansing were roundly disappointed by a lack of meaningful enforcement of social distancing mandates on Wednesday during Operation Gridlock. Hundreds of demonstrators left their cars, refused to socially distance and clearly violated state orders.

And none of the blatant violations this week resulted in any actual legal consequences in Lansing. The Michigan State Police took a largely hands-off approach; LPD didnt issue a single citation.

In response, Lansing Mayor Andy Schor announced today that additional precautions will be taken for future demonstrations after many of those who participated in the rally put the safety of residents, first responders and their respective communities at risk, Schor said.

The hands-off approach didnt seem to curb dangerous behavior, explained City Council President Peter Spadafore. While I hope there arent future events like this, we really do need to have a more thorough plan in place to enforce the law and protect our citizens out there.

Were Lansing. Were used to protests. We know how to handle traffic problems. We know how to handle large crowds. It seems that all of that historical knowledge just went out the window this week, Spadafore added. There just wasnt a coordinated plan to ensure safety.

The Michigan State Police handled the State Capitol lawn, the epicenter of Wednesdays protest. The Lansing Police Department, with some assistance from MSP, was responsible for monitoring the rest of the city, controlling traffic and ensuring the crowds played by the rules.

However, officers at either agency didnt issue citations to anyone, even if they were in clear violation of the social distancing guidelines. Instead, the order of the day was about warnings.

MSP officials told MLive that the extreme discretion approach was based on a handful of factors, including protecting the right to gather and protest while balancing the potential arrest of dozens of protestors with an angry, cooped-up crowd that could've quickly become violent.

Police Chief Daryl Green insists that his officers did not follow the same protocol, noting that tickets could have been issued for distancing violations. His officers simply decided against it. But next time around, hell consider issuing a directive to ramp up enforcement against violators.

Green focused first on actual physical public safety essentially ensuring crowds kept calm. And while hundreds were still warned about standing too close together, none were ticketed. The takeaway: Police could have been done more to protect residents. And next time, they will.

This was unprecedented, Green told City Pulse. Moving forward, well monitor these situations and take appropriate action as necessary. I cant guarantee well have 100 citations next time, but if we have an opportunity to take enforcement action, well do it.

Under new guidance from the mayors office, the Police Department has been directed to seek out additional assistance from other law enforcement agencies in the region for future protests. Officers will also watch for social distancing violations with a closer eye, Schor explained today.

Knowing that this is going to happen again, that there are plans for more protests, we always review what we can do and what works and what doesnt work, Schor added. We can always make adjustments, especially for these new styles of precautions that must be taken.

Schor said Lansing was only prepared for a normal protest not a gathering of thousands with gridlocked streets during an unprecedented lockdown order and a worldwide health crisis. In the future, traffic could also be restricted from some residential neighborhoods, Schor said.

At a press conference this afternoon, Schor said the city will also consider closing lanes near major hospitals to ensure access and working with the Michigan Department of Transportation to restrict highway access into Lansing.

It was a different rally and a different protest than weve ever seen before, Schor added. Protesters had said they were going to be circling the Capitol. We really didnt know the effects that would have on the rest of the city. Were going to be ready for this new reality.

Green knows that actual tickets and fines can serve as an important deterrent for those who choose to ignore the governors order on social distancing. A police presence with real enforcement also adds some teeth to the mandate, showing violations carry consequences.

But he also knows he needs to strike a delicate balance between protecting the public and his own staff. Every officer that comes into contact with someone to write a misdemeanor ticket risks further exposure to the virus, and the potential for at least 14 days off duty in quarantine.

I understand that people want more tickets and they want more arrests, but every time we pull those officers, those resources, away for something like writing a ticket, our state of readiness goes down. Were less prepared for something else that could take place, Green said.

Hospital staff at both McLaren and Sparrow in Lansing also took to social media this week to complain about the gridlocked streets. Some emergency personnel were late to their shifts. A few ambulances were briefly delayed in traffic, but no other significant delays were reported.

Local streets were noisy and filled with racist imagery Wednesday. Noise ordinances might have been violated. Hundreds more had clearly crossed the governors social distancing mandates, endangering countless thousands across the state as they converged on Lansing.

Ingham County Health Officer Linda Vail said officials are learning as they go, but she was pleased to see plans in the works for heavier handed enforcement for future demonstrations.

Have we ever dealt with something like this before? Probably not, Vail said. This was new. We know how to handle protests. We know how to handle epidemics. We supposedly know how to handle pandemics. All of these conflating at one time? Its just unprecedented.

I get allowing free speech. But people from all over the state traveled into Ingham County and interacted with all sorts of people here, Vail added. We have to have some sort of balance to the right of free speech and the right to protect our community under this executive order.

Excerpt from:

Lansing cops brace for another 'Operation Gridlock' - City Pulse

Hundreds of Workers in Meat & Poultry Plants Test Positive for COVID-19 – Free Speech TV

Democracy Now! looks at the spike in coronavirus infections at meatpacking plants. In just one case, Smithfield Foods shut down a plant responsible for 5% of U.S. pork production after more than 350 workers at the facility tested positive for COVID-19.

Meanwhile, deaths of slaughterhouse workers have been reported in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Colorado. Many poultry/meat processing facilities employ large numbers of immigrants, including undocumented workers.

DN also speaks with Wenonah Hauter, executive director and founder of Food & Water Watch, and with Magaly Licolli, executive director of Venceremos, an advocacy group for poultry plant workers, based in Springdale, Arkansas, home to Tyson Foods headquarters.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez.

Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

Amy Goodman Coronavirus COVID-19 Democracy Now! Free Speech TV Meat Poultry Slaughterhouse Wenonah Hauter Workers' Rights

See the original post:

Hundreds of Workers in Meat & Poultry Plants Test Positive for COVID-19 - Free Speech TV

Ad industry bodies urge Michigan governor to recant ban on advertising nonessential items – AdAge.com

On Thursday, five ad industrytrade associations released a joint statement urging Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to retract a portion of a new executive order that prohibits large retailers from advertising nonessential items and property owners from advertising short-term rentals.

The Association of Advertising Agencies (4As), the American Advertising Federation (AAF), Association of National Advertisers (ANA), Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) say the ad ban violates free speech, does nothing to help public health and could further hurt the economy.

In arbitrarily prohibitingadvertising by large retailers and rental property owners, theorder violates a fundamental tenant of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech by targeting specific speakers based on what they want to say, reads the letter.

The Michigan executive order was issued on April 9, 2020, and is slated to last for the rest of the month. The order is meant to slow the spread of COVID-19 by requiring residents to stay at home and keep nonessential businesses closed.

The trade associations are specifically addressing sections 11 and 12 of the order which prohibittwo groupslarge retailers and property ownersfrom advertising.

The order instructs that stores of more than 50,000 square feet, refrain from the advertising or promotion of goods that are not groceries, medical supplies, or items that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and basic operation of residences by April 13, 2020.

The mandate also states: No one shall advertise or rent a short-term vacation property except as necessary to assist in housing a health care professional or volunteer aiding in the response to the COVID-19 crisis.

We dont see a rational basis [for the order], or any basis at all, says Dan Jaffe, group exec VPof government relations at ANA. We agree with the Governor that people need to be protected, but we dont want restrictions on advertising. It might just increase issues were facing economically.

Jaffe says that as far as the industry is aware, the ad ban applies to all formats and distribution channels in the state, but says the order is not specific enough when it comes to these details.

Under the constitution, a state has the power to prohibit advertising, but the Supreme Court has made it so that a state has to prove it has a substantial interest in doing so, says Jaffe. Health is a substantial interest, but we believe this is unconstitutional, he says. The proposal has no effect on public health and violates the first amendment.

A major piece of contention in the order is the difference in freedoms given to small stores and large retailers. Why can a store that is relatively small advertise and not a large store? he says, adding that often social distancing is harder to accomplish in small stores where there are fewer aisles.

Read the original here:

Ad industry bodies urge Michigan governor to recant ban on advertising nonessential items - AdAge.com

Recent books with Harvard connections – Harvard Magazine

Inside the Hot Zone, by Mark G. Kortepeter 83, M.P.H. 95 (Potomac Books/University of Nebraska, $34.95). Now a public-health professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the author is a retired army colonel with long experience in defense against biological agents. His thriller-like account, subtitled a soldier on the front lines of biological warfare, is a timely reminder that alongside natural threats (Ebola, coronavirus), life sciences can be weaponized in stealthy, alarming ways.

Traces of J.B. Jackson, by Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz, Ph.D. 69, RF 01 (University of Virginia, $39.50). John Brinckerhoff Jackson 32 had an engaging, diverse, creative three-year undergraduate career at Harvard, following which his life experiences in Europe, New Mexico, and the military led him to create Landscape magazine and to shape, profoundly, landscape studies at Berkeley, the Graduate School of Design, and elsewhere. Horowitz, now emerita from Smith College, provides an accessible, handsomely illustrated guide to the life and work of the man who taught us to see everyday America.

Baby Jails: The Fight to End the Incarceration of Refugee Children in America, by Philip G. Schrag 64 (University of California, $29.95 paper). A Georgetown Law professor details the too-long history of locking up minors (he worked in a jail full of toddlers) brought into this country, often for basic reasons of safety, and political leaders refusal to address their needs for minimally humane care. An issue that lingers because the people who would have to caredont.

Nothing Is Wrong and Here Is Why, by Alexandra Petri 10 (W.W. Norton, $25.95). A collection from the work of The Washington Post columnist, whose zany satiresfar more carefully and wickedly crafted than they at first seemgo far beyond her role as dedicated humorist in the nations capital. It seems almost unfair for her to get to practice in an era so rich in possibilities. A Good Time to Talk About Gun Laws (President Donald Trump said he would do so as time goes by) notes that Not now is not the same as never. It must be on a day when there has been not recent gun violence. So not today, and not tomorrow, and not the day after that. But someday. That was in 2017.

The Last Negroes at Harvard: The Class of 1963 and the 18 Young Men Who Changed Harvard Forever, by Kent Garrett 83 and Jeanne Ellsworth (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $27). A retired television journalist (see Reel Revolution, March-April 2017, page 55) tells the stories of 18 youngsters who grew up when Brown vs. Board of Education was decided; entered Harvard as the largest group of Negroes admitted to a freshman class to date; and graduated as the civil-rights confrontation campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, began to break segregation: the era when Negro gave way to black (hence the title). He recalls the special sting of dorm crew: I was a Negro doing Negro workI was in my place. In recording what it meant to be pulledinto an unknown world, Garrett and Ellsworth have captured the nascent movement toward a broadened institutiona change well worth remembering.

Why We Swim, by Bonnie Tsui 99 (Algonquin Books, $26.95). The writer/swimmer/surfer reports on the enigma of land-adapted Homo sapiens loving to live by and plunge into the water. Journalism cum poetry: We submerge ourselves in the natural world because the natural world has a way of eliciting awe.

The Long Fix, by Vivian S. Lee 87, M.D. 92 (W.W. Norton, $26.95). The president of health platforms at Verily Life Sciences, an Alphabet/Google analytics enterprisea Rhodes Scholar, and former dean of the University of Utah School of Medicineseeks solutions to Americas health care crisis with strategies that work for everyone. In a system marked by waste, overtreatment, deadly mistakes, inconsistent care, excessive bureaucracy, and other serious ailments, she attacks the bias of paying for action (the pervasive fee-for-service paradigm) rather than demanding results.

Healthy Buildings, by Joseph G. Allen, assistant professor of exposure and assessment science, and John D. Macomber, senior lecturer in finance (Harvard, $35). A public-health scientist and a Business School teacher join forces to explain why the indoorswhere humans in developed societies spend 90 percent of their timedrive performance and productivity, as the subtitle puts it. A useful complement to the energy- and climate-focused concerns of the green-building movement.

A Registry of My Passage Upon the Earth, by Daniel Mason 98 (Little, Brown, $27). The physician-novelist (The Winter Soldier, The Piano Tuner) presents a series of precisely crafted, often historically informed, stories about mystery and the unexpected turns of diverse lives.

The Caregivers Encyclopedia, by Muriel R. Gillick, professor of population medicine (Johns Hopkins, $22.95 paper). Given the burgeoning obligation to assist increasingly dependent elders, many of their grown children, and others, will gratefully receive this compassionate guide to caring for older adults. It is admirably forthright, clearly organized, and helpfully illustrated, proceeding from an initial focus on understanding someones underlying health state through visiting doctors, entering the hospital, and proceeding from acute to long-term care, at home and in specialized facilities.

The Fairest of Them All, by Maria Tatar, Loeb research professor of Germanic languages and literatures and of folklore and mythology (Harvard, $27.95). The preeminent scholar of folklore (profiled in The Horror and the Beauty,November-December 2007, page 36) here examines the cruel, jolting tale of Snow White in the global context of 21 tales of mothers and daughters. A creepy, revealing collection.

Cook, Taste, Learn, by Guy Crosby, adjunct associate professor of nutrition (Columbia University Press, $26.95). A brisk, attractively formatted history of the science of cookingwith color-coded inserts on the learning (emulsions, the chemical structure of fats, etc.) and for recipes.

Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, by Suzanne Nossel 91, J.D. 96 (Dey Street, $28.99). The CEO of PEN Americaformerly COO of Human Rights Watchadvances a common set of rules for speech in an era when our global conversation is now a mosh pit of expression and [h]ateful speech is on the rise.

The Obama Portraits, by Tana Caragol, Dorothy Moss, Richard. J. Powell, and Kim Sajet (Princeton, $24.95). Three National Portrait Gallery colleagues and a Duke art historian (Powell) document the making of and extraordinary public response to the official portraits of President Barack Obama, J.D. 91, and First Lady Michelle Obama, J.D. 88.

The first post-nomination portrait of Abraham Lincoln, by William Marsh, May 20, 1860, taken in Springfield, IllinoisPhotograph by William Marsh/ The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Public Domain

Lincoln on the Verge, by Ted Widmer 84, Ph.D. 93 (Simon & Schuster, $35). A gripping, minutely detailed account of Abraham Lincolns 13-day progress from Springfield to Washington, to take possession of the presidency at the then-United States moment of greatest challenge. Evocatively illustrated, and resonant with the kind of leaderly rhetoric and character that sustained the nationand made it great.

When Truth Mattered, by Robert Giles, curator emeritus, Nieman Foundation for Journalism (Mission Point Press, $16.95 paper). The then-managing editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, Giles now has written a fiftieth-anniversary account of the Kent State shootingswhen protest was cut down by state power gone horribly wrongand of the role of a free press in getting the news right. In an uncomfortable number of ways, his story resonates with current circumstances.

Originally posted here:

Recent books with Harvard connections - Harvard Magazine

An open letter to Gov. Roy Cooper and local governments across the state – Laurinburg Exchange

Tthe North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law has offered its assistance to Gov. Cooper and local governments in rescinding or revising orders unconstitutionally restricting the rights of the people to free speech and to assembly.

We understand the seriousness of the situation, not just in terms of COVID-19 itself but also in terms of how government is violating the constitution during the crisis.

The First Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution protect the peoples right to free speech and to assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights may be limited if government has a compelling interest and uses narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. NCICL recently posted an explanation of the test, called strict scrutiny, used by courts to decide whether this tough burden has been satisfied when a government limits fundamental rights like the right to free speech. That explanation and other resources are available at http://www.ncicl.org.

First Amendment rights arent absolute, but neither is government power. If Gov. Cooper or local governments want help, NCICL is more than willing to help them revise or rescind their orders to ensure that constitutional rights are respected.

Jeanette Doran

President/general counsel

NC Institute for Constitutional Law

See the original post:

An open letter to Gov. Roy Cooper and local governments across the state - Laurinburg Exchange

Gov. Whitmer responds to drive-by rally at the state capitol – Fox17

The drive-by rallly at the state capitol in Lansing was highly publicized mainly on social media. Gov. Whitmer mentioned earlier in the week that she was all for people excersizing their right to free speech, but has been very vocal about the importance of social distancing.

FOX 17 talked with Gov. Whitmer about the turnout at the rally and why she says it may impact the stay-at-home order in the future.

"Well, i think that yesterday's event was a political rally," said Whitmer. "I know that there were some people there that came to protest the stay at home order, but the vast majority of people there were there, making political statements. Whether it was open carry people that had AR-15s that they were carrying on their bodies or it was people that were flying the confederate flag, people that were using swastikas."

Governor Whitmer also raised concern after some protesters did not stay in their cars.

"I know that this is, this was an event where people will now go back to different parts of the state, and could could actually pass COVID-19 on in a greater number," Whitmer said. " The irony the sad irony is that they were protesting the state home order. and because of their actions might make it necessary to take this posture even longer if COVID-19 continues to spread, because of this irresponsible action."

Read more:

Gov. Whitmer responds to drive-by rally at the state capitol - Fox17

Jerry Falwell Jr. Has a Free Speech Problem – Reason

Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of the evangelical Liberty University, has long positioned himself as a torch-bearer of free expression. "Free speech and intellectual diversity are two of the most important pillars of a college education," he wrote last June. "That's why I urge every college and university in the country to encourage open political discourse on their own campusesjust as we do at Liberty University."

Falwell is now demanding the arrest of two reporters he accuses of painting his school in a negative light.

In an interview with radio host Todd Starnes, Falwell derided reporters at The New York Times andProPublicafor how they covered his decision to partially reopen Liberty amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Both pieces, he claimed, unfairly portrayed Liberty's attitude toward the coronavirus as flippant and careless. He singled out, for example, Times journalist Elizabeth Williamson's characterization of a conversation she had with local physician Thomas W. Eppes, Jr.: Williamson wrote that Eppes told her "nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19." Although one eventually tested positive, Falwell said the presumptive cases never numbered as high as 12a depiction he cast as "sensational click-bait."

And so the university president secured arrest warrants for Times photographer Julia Rendlemanand ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis for trespassing, a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. He told Starnes that an additional warrant is coming against someone affiliated with another "big time liberal news organization." (There is no warrant against Williamson because she did not take any photographs, so there's no physical proof that she was on campus.) Falwell also maintained that "lawsuits will be filed" against The New York Times if a retraction or Liberty-friendly correction isn't issued regarding the contagion numbers.

It's possible that Falwell is just trying to engage in some crisis PR. It's also possible that Williamson misunderstood or mischaracterized Eppes' comments. The veracity of the story isn't the point here. The point is Falwell's attempt to arrest people associated with reports he feels are biased against himnot the recourse you'd expect from someone who seriously sees his university as a bulwark of free expression.

"It is clear that Falwell is engaged in a campaign of petty retribution against journalists who write articles critical of the university," says Ari Cohn, a free speech lawyer and former director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). "But that's actually completely in line with Liberty University's faux concern for freedom of expression. Falwell's idea of freedom of expression on campus includes only expression that he approves of."

The trespassing charges aren't likely to hold up in court: The reporters involved were photographing a student who invited them to campus for an interview. But who really believes that the alleged trespassing is Falwell's concern here? He wants to intimidate people who criticize his school.

That same browbeating culture is alive and well within the institution's walls. Calum Best, the student interviewed by both The New York Times andProPublica, described an angry phone call he received from Scott Lamb, the college's senior vice president for university communications, after he wrote a Facebook post arguing for tuition refunds amid COVID-19. Lamb included Best's work-study boss on the call.

"I thought I was in deep trouble for some professional failure," Best wrote on Medium. "But, as the call went on, I realized my boss had no need to be there, and had no connection to the matter at hand."

That heavy-handedness tracks with how Falwell and his associates oversee Champion, Liberty University's student paper. Will E. Young, the former editor-in-chief, wrote last year that Falwell actively got in the way of Trump-critical coverage, at one point removing a student op-ed lamenting Trump's Access Hollywood tape. The author of that erstwhile column, Joel Schmieg, took to Facebook to air the grievance and was promptly contacted by a faculty adviser, who reprimanded him for doing so. Schmieg then resigned.

As a private institution, Liberty University can set its own rules of conduct. But it's the height of hypocrisy to muzzle student speech while making a show of opposing censorship. And the university president isn't just dealing with a newspaper on its own turf: With these warrants, Falwell is leveraging state power to try to stop speech by private actors whose only connection to his school is to write about it. It's a bad approach for anyone to take, but especially someone who claims to support free expression and intellectual diversity.

The rest is here:

Jerry Falwell Jr. Has a Free Speech Problem - Reason

Don’t let free speech be a casualty of coronavirus. We need it more than ever – The Guardian

In times of crisis, liberal democratic institutions and values are vulnerable to authoritarian power grabs, or corona coups, as we are seeing around the world today. One of the first victims, as always, is freedom of speech. But the current attack on free speech is particularly dangerous, because it does not only target, reasonably, fake news on coronavirus, but also critique of inadequacies in hospitals by healthcare workers.

Repressive measures against fake news have been a popular topic for years now, having reached feverish levels in the wake of the 2016 US presidential elections. Even though the actual effects of fake news and Russian interference remain unclear and highly disputed, many mainstream politicians have convinced themselves that the spread of fake news is one of the main reasons that they are losing votes and power to populists.

Social media platforms are pressured into fighting fake news and a true cottage industry of factcheckers has emerged many reputable, some not. Still, too little progress has been made. This is not that surprising, though, given the daily barrage of fake news coming out of some of the most powerful political offices in the world, including Downing Street and the White House.

Since the term was popularized by Donald Trump, it should come as no surprise that populists in power have enthusiastically embraced the fight against fake news. And now the coronavirus has given them an opportunity to intensify that fight by passing draconian new laws, allegedly to prevent fake news from worsening the crisis.

One of the worst examples, as so often in recent years, comes out of Hungary, where the rubber stamp parliament has passed a set of emergency measures without actually facing an emergency (as of 31 March, Hungary has officially had only 492 cases, including 16 deaths) to give the far-right prime minister Viktor Orbn dictatorial powers. As Orbn rules by decree, anything that he deems fake news will be punishable to up to five years in prison a death sentence for independent media, in so far as it still exists in Hungary.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the attack on the free speech of people at the frontlines of the fight against the coronavirus: healthcare workers. These are the people best informed about the situation, and thus the best potential antidotes to fake news. Yet, according to the Independent, British NHS doctors are being gagged over protective equipment shortages, while NHS England has taken control of communications for many NHS hospitals and staff.

In the US, one of the few western democracies without a universal public healthcare system, individual private hospitals are doing the censoring. Prioritizing their brand and profits over the health of their patients and staff, private hospitals across the US have threatened staff with termination if they speak out about the lack of protective gear. Several hospital staff have already been fired after speaking out, an incredible waste of crucial but sparse resources during a pandemic.

Leaving aside the problem of employers regulating the speech of their employees, incidentally an increasingly common development (even at universities), censoring healthcare professionals is outright dangerous to the broader community. These are the people who actually have day-to-day experience with the coronavirus and risk their lives to help others particularly if their employers dont provide them with adequate protective gear.

Free speech makes us more rather than less safe, both as citizens and patients

Moreover, we know how dangerous this type of censorship is from recent experiences in China. Max Fisher has written an excellent New York Times expos of how Chinas authoritarian structure had worsened the countrys response to the coronavirus outbreak. And western media have devoted ample attention to the tragic case of Li Wenliang, the Chinese whistleblower doctor who died of the coronavirus in February.

The irony is that some of the same politicians who support, or at least allow, the censorship of healthcare professionals in their own country have been outspoken critics of the Chinese approach. For instance, the British cabinet minister Michael Gove recently blamed China for failing to stop the spread of coronavirus, while Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House foreign affairs committee, even called Chinas response one of the worst cover-ups in human history.

To ensure that we are not making the same mistakes as China, and to protect the health and lives of the heroic healthcare workers (including the many volunteers) who are putting their lives on the line every day to keep us alive and healthy, we must resist these dangerous attacks on free speech, as well as other unnecessary authoritarian measures in response to the coronavirus crisis. Irrespective of the hype about fake news, free speech makes us more rather than less safe, both as citizens and patients, even in times of a health crisis.

Excerpt from:

Don't let free speech be a casualty of coronavirus. We need it more than ever - The Guardian

A Contrarian’s View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech – Jewish Week

Most citizens in the United States take the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech as a source of patriotic pride. We have been taught that all speech is protected. Bad speech is overcome with good speech. No matter how much harm speech inflicts, when the First Amendment is in question, the Supreme Court feels it is its duty to defend all speech.

Thane Rosenbaum, a lawyer, novelist and Distinguished University Professor at Touro College, disagrees. In his informative and highly readable book, Saving Free Speech from Itself (Fig Tree Books), he explains how many of our assumptions about freedom of speech and the law are either incorrect as a matter of history or rest on a thin scaffolding of flawed reasoning. At the same time he shows there are many instances where America is shutting down free speech. In Rosenfelds view the time has come to save free speech from itself. His book deserves serious consideration in our current political and educational climate.

I must admit to being surprised to learn how little I understood the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers implicitly assumed free speech to mean that the government could not suppress any expression against the government, nor could private individuals be coerced into propagating government propaganda. In other words, free speech was initially a buffer against dictatorship and limited to freedom from government control. In 1919, this changed with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.s stirring dissent in Abrams v. United States, which won over the American public by arguing that restraints on private speech were permissible only when speech constituted a present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about essentially, the dont shout fire in a crowded theater test.

Rosenbaum attempts to reframe our assumptions about freedom of speech.

As Rosenbaum shows, free speech protection for private individuals is now used to violate peoples privacy and dignity. He describes how in 2011, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, overturned a jury verdict against the Westboro Baptist Church. The church set up a protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, chanting slurs against gays and holding up signs reading God hates America and Thank God for dead soldiers.

Get Jewish Week's Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Heartbroken by the fiasco of a funeral, the soldiers father sued. The 8-1 majority set aside all consideration for the family, piously invoked the right to free speech and further ordered that Snyder pay the churchs $16,000 in costs.

In other instances, Rosenbaum shows how the First Amendment is used to protect hate speech. Holocaust deniers and KKK members as well as possibly more benign flat earth and fake moon landing believers have all advanced their agendas under the umbrella of free speech. And most alarmingly he gives examples of how it is used to protect potentially fatal substances. Purveyors of, say, fake coronavirus cures and treatments can be sued on product claims, but anybody can get up on a street corner and make any claim that they want.

The coronavirus outbreak has also reminded us of the necessity of free speech as the Founding Fathers defined it. Dr. Li Wenliang, the Wuhan ophthalmologist who early on tried to warn the Chinese medical community about the virus potency, was forced by Communist Party authorities to recant his false comments. How many lives might have been saved if his speech had been free.

Dr. Lis warning is exactly the kind of free speech the First Amendment was trying to protect. Rosenbaum shows, however, that todays free speech is too often serving a different function. He writes: Here is what the First Amendment should never be called upon to protect: groups of nativists shouting Muslims Go Home; neo-Nazis marching through a hamlet [of] Holocaust survivors ; burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans; showing up to a military funeral to make ones hatred of homosexuals plainly known. They are, in fact, neither ideas nor debates. They are orgies of hate that amount to non-speech. Lets stop pretending we cannot tell the difference.

While this is not an explicitly Jewish book, Rosenbaums exploration of the harm caused by current applications of free speech will resonate with Jewish readers. His arguments about human dignity and free speech echo within the biblical notion of the image of God. Likewise he shows how Talmudic dictates that compare slander to physical harm and even death are backed up by modern scientific research that demonstrates that false speech can cause physical harm.

In an era in which American society has become radically polarized, Rosenbaum sets out to bridge the liberal-conservative divide, at least when it comes to permitted speech. He asks us to address some of our core ideas about American ideals. Not a bad thing to do when the government is ordering us to stay sheltered in place for the good of all Americans.

Scott A. Shay is chairman and co-founder of Signature Bank of New York and is the author of In Good Faith: Questioning Religion and Atheism (Post Hill Press, 2018).

Read the original post:

A Contrarian's View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech - Jewish Week

[RECAP] What Professors Need to Know about Online Hate and Harassment – PEN America

An online forum hosted by PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program

NEW YORKThis week, PEN Americas Campus Free Speech Program launched a webinar series, Free Speech and the Virtual Campus, with an inaugural session devoted to What Professors Need to Know about Online Hate and Harassment. Hundreds of participants viewed the session from seven countries, as panelists discussed online attacks and abuse that faculty can prepare for, defend against, and combat.

Viktorya Vilk, program director for digital safety and free expression at PEN America, discussed how online abuse can be defined and outlined the chilling, censoring effects it can have on writers and journalists. She summarized recent trends and offered advice, drawn from PEN Americas Online Harassment Field Manual, on how to protect ones identity, how to document online abuse, and how to be a supportive ally to those targeted. She explained that women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community are disproportionately targeted by abuse and hate, which risks silencing the voices of those who have historically been marginalized in higher education and society writ large. She emphasized that offering institutional support and allyship to students, faculty, and staff targeted by online abuse is critical to ensuring that higher education is more equitable and diverse.

Oren Segal, vice president at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League, discussed the rise in white supremacists and extremists using online spaces to spread hate, and their efforts to use the pandemic to reach new audiences. Segal noted that just like everyone else, extremists are also home now, engaging in online aggression, like Zoombombing. Despite some extremists affiliating themselves to hate groups, Segal emphasized that the majority of offenders are lone actors, making some of their actions hard to predict. Segal shared ADLs tips on preventing Zoombombing as well as their hate symbols database, as a reference for faculty to familiarize themselves with.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Professor of Education and Sociology at American University, spoke about the current threat of youth radicalization, with K-12 and college students now spending greater amounts of time online. She detailed how faculty members could prepare for such threats proactively, by updating their awareness of hate symbols and familiarizing themselves with digital platforms, as well as getting to know their security settings and available restrictions. She also offered advice for faculty and administrators in the aftermath of an incident of hate or harassment, elaborating on how faculty might deal with the after-effects of a Zoombombing incident in an online class.

Various questions and concerns were also taken up by panelists, as posed from the audience, including:

Link:

[RECAP] What Professors Need to Know about Online Hate and Harassment - PEN America

The New York Times Is Great, but Wholl Cover Your Community? – Slate

Mi-Ai Parrish (top left), Kyle Pope (top right), and Suzanne Nossel (bottom middle)

Screenshot from Zoom

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the local news industry was a patient who already had all the underlying health conditions, said Mi-Ai Parrish, the former publisher of the Arizona Republic.

Now, local news is a patient in critical condition. Each day brings a new round of layoffs and pay cuts for journalists, a new slowing down of a printing press, and a new silence in communities that need accurate, updated, and tailored information. This is the tragic irony of our current moment: The COVID-19 pandemic is underscoring the critical importance of local news while also decimating it.

Considering this contradiction and examining paths forward were at the heart of Future Tenses most recent web event in our yearlong Free Speech Project series, which is examining the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

In communities across the U.S., local journalists have kept their communities informed throughout the pandemic about things like how many tests are available, where to go to get the resources they need, whats happening with their schools, what shortages their hospitals facethe sort of crucial, community-level coverage that large national publications like the New York Times cant.

Local news coverage during the pandemic hasnt just been about tallying cases. Kyle Pope, the editor and publisher of Columbia Journalism Review, noted that outlets have also shone a spotlight on social problemsthings like existing issues in county jails, the lack of capacity for digital learning in schools, and resource gaps at hospitals.

We think of local journalists as first responders, said Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of PEN America, a membership organization of writers dedicated to protecting free expression. Indeed, news organizations have been widely designated as essential businesses during the pandemic.

Recognizing the importance of their work to their communities, many news organizations have taken down paywalls for their COVID-19 coverage, an honorable decision which highlights an interesting conundrum, said Parrish, currently the Sue Clark-Johnson Professor in Media Innovation and Leadership at Arizona State University. (Disclosure: ASU is a partner with Slate and New America in Future Tense.) Outside of emergency situations, people often argue against paywalls by claiming that journalism is so vital that it should be freebut whats lost in that argument is that precisely because journalism is so vital, it needs the financial backing of its audience.

Unfortunately, convincing people to pay for journalism, particularly online journalism, is difficult.

Theres still sort of a hangover from the days where everything on the internet was free and people expected it to be free, Nossel said.

In a November report, PEN America found that over the past 15 years, newspapers have lost over $35 billion in ad revenue and 47 percent of newsroom staff. In many cases, the report notes, the digital shift has collapsed local newsrooms business models.

Without even taking into consideration the impact of our current pandemic, $35 billion represents a massive funding gap, one not easily bridged. Doing so requires recognition among the public that journalism is a necessary public serviceand perhaps government funding.

The most recent stimulus bill, as Nossel and Viktorya Vilk recently highlighted in Future Tense, includes almost no support for the journalism industry. But several organizations, including PEN America, are calling for future stimulus funding to include a special focus on local news organizations.

Government funding for journalism is controversial in the U.S., with critics citing concerns over editorial independence. But there are successful models for maintaining independence despite government funding in areas such as scientific research and the arts, Nossel said.

Perhaps this stimulus phase can kind of destigmatize the idea of expanding public funding and catalyze a robust, in-depth debate, she said.

One thing thats clear is that solutions are urgent. More than 2,100 newspapers have disappeared since 2004, according to University of North Carolina professor Penny Muse Abernathy. And that was before the pandemic. Once they disappear, they do not come back, said Nossel. So theres a finality at stake here.

Ultimately, said Pope, the problem local news faces is so daunting that theres no rescue big enough thats going to come from the outside. Rescuing local news requires community buy-in and community boots on the ground.

To get their communities to rally around them, said Pope, its incumbent on these news organizations to humanize themselves.

There are lots of ways to do this. It may involve sitting with your critical readers to discuss concerns over barbecue. It may involve, as Pope once did, parking an RV on the streets of Manhattan and opening the doors to community members with concerns, comments, questions, and tips. It wont always be easy.

But luckily, local news organizations have two big things going for them on this front. First, the majority of Americans trust local television, newspapers, and radio (more so than national news sources), and this trust increases with increased contact with local reporters.

The second, Parrish highlighted, is that among local journalists there is still so much heart for the work, despite constant challenges. After the 2016 election of Donald Trump, journalism schools across the country saw a surge in class sizes, and the panelists said it was reasonable to expect a similar reaction in the months following the pandemic.

Pope said his largest source of hope is local journalists commitment to telling stories that matterthe type of commitment that has them emailing CJR the day after theyve been laid off with an idea for a new, important story that theyre ready to report.

This hope is especially important in the face of the industrys uncertain future.

Its like everything that were living through right now. None of us know where the other side is, Pope said. I live in New York City and every day I look for glimmers of hope in the data, and some days I see it and some days I dont [W]e have to get through that phase first, and then we can start looking at the battlefield and sort of say, Where do we go now?

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Go here to read the rest:

The New York Times Is Great, but Wholl Cover Your Community? - Slate

Suspending the Campaign, Not the Movement: Bernie Sanders Pulls Out of 2020 Race But Will Stay on Ballot – Free Speech TV

Senator Bernie Sanders has suspended his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, making former Vice President Joe Biden the presumptive nominee to face Donald Trump in November. Sanders says he will stay on the ballot in remaining primary races and continue to assemble delegates.

DN plays highlights from Sanderss speech to supporters in a live stream on Wednesday. Together, we have transformed American consciousness as to what kind of nation we can become, and have taken this country a major step forward in the never-ending struggle for economic justice, social justice, racial justice and environmental justice, he said.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez.

Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

2020 Democratic Presidential nomination Amy Goodman Bernie Sanders Democracy Now! Donald Trump Free Speech TV Joe Biden

See the article here:

Suspending the Campaign, Not the Movement: Bernie Sanders Pulls Out of 2020 Race But Will Stay on Ballot - Free Speech TV

Campus Free Speech Organization FIRE Is Protecting the Rights of Students Online – Breitbart

The Foundation for Individual Right in Education (FIRE) says that it will defend the rights of college students in online college classes to ensure thatacademic freedom and freedom of expression are protected during the Chinese virus pandemic.

The free speech organization vows to continue to defend the rights of students as universities transition toward greater use of technology to ensure that basic civil liberties are not compromised.

FIREs statement arrives on the heels ofrecent Zoom bombings a type of cyber attack in which Zoom video conferencing meetings are hacked by unwelcome visitors.

The video conference app which has surged in popularity due to an increase of virtual meetings across the country in response to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic has garnered an influx of complaints from users who have had their virtual meetings hijacked.

The incidents have even elicited a response from New YorkAttorney General Letitia James, who sent a letterto Zoom with a number of questions to ensure the company is taking appropriate steps to ensure users privacy and security, according to a spokesperson.

Now, FIRE has issued reasonable steps for students, faculty, and administrators to take in order to protect their virtual classrooms while ensuring that the First Amendment rights of students are upheld.

Reasonable steps may include controlling students microphone access; imposing reasonable, viewpoint-neutral requirements on student use of virtual backgrounds; and asking students to disable their camera, said the organization in a recentstatement.

Faculty, or the administrator of the virtual classroom if not the professor, may restrict the ability of unauthorized individuals to access and disrupt class sessions using the platforms security settings, protecting their and their students right to a disruption-free environment, FIRE added.

The organization went on to state that faculty should recognize that students attending classes from their residences or remote locations may have limited control over their immediate physical surroundings, and should take reasonable steps to accommodate students in the manner that best approximates an in-person classroom experience.

Like faculty, studentsexpressive rights in the virtual classroom should mirror those afforded to them when attending class on campus, added FIRE. Students must be given the opportunity to participate in online learning free from discrimination, harassment, and other undue interference with their educational pursuits.

As is always the case, students must not be subjected to discrimination by their professors based on their viewpoint or opinion, which strikes at the core of both the First Amendment and liberal education, the organization affirmed.

You can follow AlanaMastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.

Excerpt from:

Campus Free Speech Organization FIRE Is Protecting the Rights of Students Online - Breitbart

Telling churches to cancel in-person services is not a violation of the First Amendment, expert says – WHAS11.com

LOUISVILLE, Ky. Both Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer have recommended faith leaders not to host in-person services as the coronavirus outbreak continues.

During his Thursday press briefing, Beshear said 54 positive cases and six deaths were linked to a church revival in Hopkins County. He encouraged leaders to host services or studies online instead.

Still, one Bullitt County pastor said he refuses to comply as his First Amendment rights are at stake. Pastor Jack Roberts at Maryville Baptist Church said he's offering an online option but continues to hold services in-person, including a Wednesday night bible study.

Attorney Mat Staver, who represents Roberts, called the orders unconstitutional.

"Home Depot has no right to exist under the Constitution, churches do," Staver said. "You don't throw that out simply in times of crisis, you have to balance that right with the safety of the people."

While the First Amendment does protect freedom of religion, the University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson said the governor is in the right.

"The only First Amendment right that the church has is not to be singled out for differential treatment," Marcosson said. "So, if the governor was allowing sporting events but not churches, then they had a claim."

Marcosson compared churches remaining open during the pandemic to a person yelling fire in a theater.

"You're not allowed to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater," Marcosson said. "Yes, you have a right to free speech, but you can't exercise that right in a way that puts other people in danger."

Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the governor is within his rights.

"There's not a First Amendment violation here," Mohler said.

He did, though, have a problem with Fischer saying no to drive-thru services. While Beshear supported Fischer's decision, he did not say he would make that recommendation for the state. Mohler said not allowing drive-thru services would single out churches.

"Religious liberty at the very least means that religious institutions cannot be singled out, if you can [have a] drive-thru a liquor store, you should be allowed to do a drive-thru service," Mohler said.

RELATED: Maryville Baptist Church holds Bible study against Gov. Beshear's recommendation

RELATED: Some churches to hold Easter services despite Beshear, Fischer's recommendations

RELATED: Passover, Good Friday and Easter: How to celebrate virtually during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic

Make it easy to keep up-to-date with more stories like this. Download the WHAS11 News app now. For Apple or Android users.

Have a news tip? Email assign@whas11.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter feed.

Visit link:

Telling churches to cancel in-person services is not a violation of the First Amendment, expert says - WHAS11.com

United Voices for ASU candidates receive three infraction points – The State Press

Elections commissioner says social media posts were a threat to ASU and President Michael Crow

Illustration published on Monday,March 20, 2017.

All seven Undergraduate Student Government Senate candidates in the United Voices for ASU coalition received three infraction points on their campaigns after a complaint was filed against their members' social media activity.

Judah Waxelbaum, chairman of the Arizona Federation of College Republicans and a junior studying political science, filed the complaint on April 5 citing the Arizona Board of Regents code of conduct that says behavior that could "present a risk or danger to the health, safety or security" of ABOR, the University, students or University property is prohibited.

"The Elections Department has reasonable evidence to believe that the United Voices for ASU Senatorial Ticket has raised reasonable concern for the risk or danger of the University community due to their tweets related to ASU President Micheal Crow," the decision says.

The decision, made by Elections Commissioner Carla Naranjo, recognizes that students have a right to free speech and political expression but says the social media posts contained in the complaint are threatening toward Crow.

The decision points out that USG is a nonpartisan governing body for all undergraduate students, something that the coalition's interactions on social media make hard to believe they would carry out, said Waxelbaum.

Waxelbaum said he was "disturbed" by the content in social media posts by members of the coalition which include profane language toward Crow, the University and suggest yelling to uphold their platform. The complaint also highlights tweets that depict violent actions toward federal presidential candidates.

"They don't seem interested in listening to those who they disagree with," Waxelbaum said. "And they're endorsed by community members and organizations that have no interest in civil dialogue."

United Voices for ASU's four-point platform demands refunds from the University for in-person tuition and housing, curved grading, free internet and transparency surrounding their response to COVID-19.

A week into campaigning, endorsements and coalitions are forming around candidates. The United Voices for ASU coalition and all of the candidates running have been endorsed by political student clubs like ASU Young Democratic Socialists of America, Students for Socialism and MECHA de ASU.

Other groups rallying around an issue like Students for Justice in Palestine and ASU No Mas Muertes have also endorsed the coalition. Clubs representing cultural groups like the African Students' Association, the Association of Latino Professionals for America and El Concilio have all voiced their support.

The coalition wants to represent what they call a minority at the University by building grassroots relationships and "representing the interests of all."

"When all of us stand together with unity, we have more chances of seeing a drastic change," said Alexia Isais, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and a sophomore studying political science.

While the coalition admits that they're proud of their resilience, other political clubs on campus haven't been too sure of their motives.

"I'm concerned that students might vote on the platform of reform due to COVID-19," said President of ASU College Libertarians, David Howman, a graduate student studying justice studies. "It's a talking point, not a real plan for unity."

Howman voiced that he was worried that those running with the coalition were in "pursuit of their own ideologies" and would set a "double-edged precedent" if people with partisan ideas joined a nonpartisan organization.

But United Voices members believe that other senatorial candidates had been more political than them. Members of the coalition said that their endorsements only represent niche groups of people who say they have never been heard before by USG or the University administration and might have a chance now.

"We're the underdogs in this election," said Bridget Saidu, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and sophomore studying philosophy and justice studies.

Another member added that the argument that the group was too political had no real grounds.

"USG is not apolitical, it's nonpartisan," said Daniel Lopez, senatorial candidate for The College, member of United Voices and junior studying philosophy and political science. "It's for helping students," he said, with everything from housing, food insecurity to discrimination, all things that he said are inherently political.

A campaign for USG is effectively suspended when the candidate receives nine infraction points.

"The level of punishment is unfortunate," Waxelbaum said. "The commissioner needs to take a serious closer look."

Campaigning began on March 30 and will end on April 14 when voting begins. Students will vote digitally on April 14 and 15 and results will be announced on April 16.

Editor's Note: Alexia Isais worked as an opinion columnist for The State Press in 2019. She was not involved in the reporting or editing of this story.

Reach the reporter at pjhanse1@asu.edu and follow @piperjhansen on Twitter.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

View post:

United Voices for ASU candidates receive three infraction points - The State Press

The Naval Academy’s War with a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minoritiesand Somehow Came Out On Top – Washingtonian

The US Merit Systems Protection Boardthe judicial dustbin where the United States does battle with employees it wants to fireis one building no bureaucrat ever wants to see. The jig may well be up by the time you arrive: Terminating a civil servant is so comically burdensome that the very fact of anyone assembling here means Uncle Sam has judged him worthy of the exertion. Certainly that was true last year when the court heard the case of US Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming.

The Academys commandant had arrived that day in his Service Khakisgold clipped belt, shined black shoes, collar insignia denoting rank. Across the aisle, in a Corneliani jacket and yellow bow tie, was the flopping marlin the school had spent years trying to spear: Fleming, a longtime English teacher. Or, as the Navy would argue, a threat to order and discipline, a corrupting influence, and, reading between the lines, a profound pain in the ass.

A grudging civility hung in the air. After three military investigations, one department inquiry, a three-year-long federal lawsuit, and one whistleblower complaint, most everybody knew everybody by now. This time, the Navy had brought allegations on behalf of five students: that Fleming had discussed oral sex and transgender surgery in class, lobbed a political epithet at two midshipmen, touched one inappropriately, and, among other things, deliberately mispronounced an Asian students name and told the student to f off (Fleming denied the last accusation). The charge that had garnered the most attention was a photo: a shirtless selfie Fleming had sent to students.

Some of the allegations would set off alarms anywhere, not least at the storied service academy, where future officers are shaped by the Honor Concept and Uniform Code of Military Justice. Fleming, though, barely raised a brow behind his tortoiseshell glasses. Over years of fighting the Navy, hed proven impossible to fire, even as hed acknowledgedproudly, in factmany incidents the brass described.

It was true, for instance, that hed told a student to fix his lisphe said he had been doing the Navy a favor by pointing it out, according to the findings of one Academy investigation. And hed happily admitted discussing anal sex in class. He was fond, too, of lampooning Academy traditions, such as the famous Herndon ritual, in which shirtless plebes climb a greased obelisk. Talk about homoerotic! This is, like, jacked-boy mud wrestling! he exclaimed before outlining to me his theory of Annapoliss culture of sexual repression.

Fleming called this most recent attempt to fire him the most skewed, the most horrible, the most demeaning ordeal of his career. He described Academy officials to me as assholes and shits.

This year, the Naval Academy was ranked highest among public liberal-arts college in Americaan honor owing to its unique arrangement in which military and civilian instructors teach side by side. Fleming, beloved by his defenders as a refreshingly contrarian voice in a chauvinistic military culture, is exhibit A for anyone who sees preserving that arrangement as important. Yet hes also the worst spokesman imaginable for just about any cause.

Which is strange because, after all these years of sparring with the higher-ups, a larger cause is precisely what he has inspired.

Fleming is 65 but looks closer to 45, a feat he owes to a lifetime of physical fitness. Mornings often consist of an hour of jogging in place while classical music pipes from his record player. His pedigree is impressiveHaverford degree at 19, dozens of books on an array of topics. A notoriously harsh grader, he simultaneously inspired a measure of devotion: Students who took to him were sometimes called the Fleming Faithful.

Not even the most faithful, though, would ever confuse him with a naval officer. Fleming spoke frankly and cursed frequently, interspersing his lectures on Tennyson and Shelley with what he called life lessons about things like condom use and gay relationships. He discouraged students from standing for attention on deck when he entered. He dressed in a different Italian suit every day, letting students try on the jackets. A male model well into his thirties, he began his courses with one-armed pushups and called students studs and studettes. In his lingo, the thesis of a paper became the Flex.

His formidable talent, though, was the ability to find arguments that could offend almost anybody. Today, the tally of charges against him is pretty much a never-ending torrent of shock-jock commentary on just about every hot-button social topic. Spend some time with him and hes likely to insult you personally.

The investigations began in 2013, a phenomenally bad time for the Academy. That year, three football players had been accused of sexually assaulting a female midshipman. As the scandal took over national headlines, the Yard felt to many like an emotional tinderbox. This was the ideal moment, Fleming judged, to criticize the schools new sexual-assault training program. During class one day, he says, he called the training strongly anti-male, parodying the dogma: If she says you harassed her, you harassed her. He took particular affront at the new regimes vernacularaccusers should be called alleged victims until the accusations are proven, he said.

Two female midshipmen shared concerns with the school, which pressed the English Department to investigate. Fleming was removed from class. But the other students in the course gave their teacher high marks overall, and he was quickly reinstated. How does Fleming remember the whole episode today? He says the two women, who dropped the course, were simply smug and self-righteous.

In early 2016, Fleming was back in trouble. A freshman plebe had come to office hours. He was Asian, a varsity soccer player. His writing was abysmal, Fleming says. He had SAT scores of high 400s, 500s, which is below even our averagewhich in turn is 100 points below more respectable schools. Anyway, according to Fleming and an Academy report, he pulled up the plebes SAT scores and tried to diagnose him. How did he get into the Naval Academy with scores this low? he asks. The answer is he was an Asian and he was a recruited athletea fact that Fleming says he patiently, but unwisely as it turns out, explained to the plebe.

The student filed a complaint, prompting the school to open a new investigation. Out tumbled a litany of accusations from others. According to an investigative report, students alleged that Professor Fleming discussed the craziest place he had ever had sex with a girl, told a midshipman his English paper sucked big donkey dicks, and explained that sometimes no means yes. (Aside from sexual discussions in class, the Academy substantiated few of the exact claims.)

It also emerged that Fleming sent the class bare-chested photos. He had e-mailed a triptych of male underwear models: actor Mark Wahlberg, tennis champion Rafael Nadal, and, lo and behold, the professor himself. The picture had been snapped during his modeling days, his pecs bejeweled with water, a dramatic gaze on his face.

Talk about homoerotic! This is, like, jacked-boy mud wrestling!

Fleming had a perfectly innocent explanation. The photos complemented a discussion of Keatss Ode on a Grecian Urn. Its about how fake perfect beauty is, because its doomed to rot, he says. His modeling days had come up. I didnt see any harm in it. Plus, it was valuable for the class to understand essential details about modelingI had to be greased up, they sprayed me with cooking oil, the light had to be perfect, blah blah blah, Fleming went on. Is it reality? This is Keatss question. Is this perfection reality?(His e-mails also compared his physique to Nadals: He has sharper abs but Im taller with a way better V and lats. Take that rafi!!)

The Academy wasnt buying it. And after months of looking into the matter, the investigative committee concluded in their report that Fleming had likely violated sexual-harassment policies.

Fleming, for his part, maintained that his style made the classroom engaging and exciting. He also had an intriguing counterargument: The Academy was bringing the code of military justice down on the heads of civilian professors, to whom it didnt apply. His lawyer, meanwhile, discovered a trap door. The school had ostensibly based its investigation on a recently instituted disciplinary rule that formally permitted students to bring complaints directly to the military, rather than appeal first to an academic department. The effective date on the published rule, though, had been alteredan act of gamesmanship, in the lawyers view, to grandfather in Flemings case. The Academy denies this, saying the date discrepancies were merely a mistake.

At any rate, Fleming was never recommended for dismissal, the professor of English apparently saved by a typo.

Fleming made no special effort to hide his disgust. According to the schools report, the only regret he voiced was that hed spent way too much time trying to make [the plebe] a better student. Nor had the student thanked him, he pointed out to me, for his efforts to tutor him. No good deed goes unpunished, he sighs.

According to the Navy, the classroom antics had a darker side. When crossed, Fleming harbored grudges and wasnt afraid to act on them. He had, for instance, sent a 5,767-word e-mail to the entire facultyWelcome to Orwells1984, he warnedin which he revealed the name of his Asian soccer-player plebe and his SAT scores, drawing attention to the students identity. Then there was the incident with the two smug and self-righteous women. Though already exonerated, Fleming hadnt let the matter go. He relitigated his case in the press and discussed with students whether he should take action against their female classmates. Then he filed conduct violations against the womenfor disrespect or insubordination and failure to use good judgment. The school ultimately put the matter to rest by issuing him a letter of reprimand.

After both cases, Fleming was convinced his actions were heroic, his persecution total. Its Kafka meets the Keystone Cops, he says.

Just because youre paranoid doesnt mean theyre not out to get me, Fleming went on. And they really are out to get me.

There were, in fact, other reasons the Navy might have wanted Fleming gone. In its first century, Annapolis taught its officers-in-training how to win wars. In its second century, it began a slow metamorphosis into a modern college. Today, the Yard has a foot in two cultures: The same campus that vows to cultivate free thinkers is also one where professors are addressed as superior officers and midshipmen arent permitted to walk on the grass.

Every once in a while, these worlds collide. In 1996, a civilian professor named James Barry wrote a critical op-ed in theWashington Postthat excoriated the Academy for a series of cheating, drug, and sexual-assault problems. Barry was immediately removed from teaching. At a campus-wide meeting, the superintendent reportedly told him to stand and announced, That man there is a liar and a traitor. Eventually, Barry was allowed back. He left instead.

Fleming was appalled but, like most colleagues, kept his opinions to himself. In 2005, he turned. He wrote his own op-ed, which spilled secrets from his short tenure on the admissions board. Only half of Academy admits were competitive, he asserted; the rest were racial minorities, athletes, or other special cases. The superintendent wrote a furious rebuke, and the whole thing ended up on CNNwhose reporter noted that the Navy cant fire a tenured professor just for speaking out.

Fleming kept speaking out: in op-eds, interviews, and TV appearances that didnt let up for 15 years. Annapolis was not what it advertised. The academic standards were bad and getting worse. Students became mindless yes-men. The Yard was a military Disneyland for tourists and a boondoggle for taxpayers that should be radically reformed or abolished.

So what did that make him, a professor at Disneyland? Some saw a foul-mouthed facsimile of Robin Williams inDead Poets Society,an apostle of good cheer set on rescuing students from hidebound adults. Im there to make sure that they dont drink the Kool-Aid, says Fleming. I can certainly see why that annoys the military.

Amid the onslaught, an academic dean named Andrew Phillips fired back. When Fleming was approved for a raise, Phillips overruled it. He later sent Fleming a letter warning him that any more inappropriate public remarks could lead to disciplinary action.

But as the CNN imbroglio should have made clear, Fleming had a flair for brinksmanship. He reported Phillips to the Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that investigates ethics violations. The paycheck retaliation violated his free speech, he claimed, and Phillipss letter was the smoking gun. The special counsel found that the Academy had acted illegally, and the school chose to settle.

Once again, headlines trumpeted the free-speech professor who had outsmarted the Navy. (Through the Academy, Phillips declined to comment for this story.) Fleming, for his part, had found the ideal nemesis: a power-hungry little shit, he says.

This guy is short, ugly, and hes got a squeaky voice!

For the next six years, the irreverent dandy and the buttoned-up officer traded blows, a spat that attracted the attention of many on the Yard. There were letters of reprimand, there was the typo that saved Fleming from the firing squad. Presiding over every investigation that dogged Fleming was Phillips. Soon enough, the dean would officiate their final showdown.

Just after New Years in 2018, the command received a 14-page complaint from a plebe named Matthew DeSantis. This time, the Academy sprang into routine like an all-hands drill. Fleming was yanked from the classroom. An investigation commenced. Justice was swift: Fleming became only the second teacher fired from the school in recent memory. In his final decision, Phillips cited conduct unbecoming a federal employee. Naturally, Fleming appealed.

It was nine months later that the two found themselves face to face in the fluorescent quarters of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Phillips would have to justify his actions under civilian standards. They were on Flemings turf now.

Midshipman DeSantis, like many peers, hailed from a conservative family, and he had graduated from a Christian school. Hed had second thoughts about coming forwardI didnt really want to be the person on the horse fighting, he testified. But to sit in a classroom where, as he wrote in his complaint, there was not a single class period when Professor Fleming did not bring up a sexual topic, especially anal sex, was, to put it gently, a shock.

The plebe was offended that Fleming called him a right-wing extremist, described the Yard as a waste of space, and compared the Herndon obelisk to a fully erect penis. He was also disturbed by Flemings descriptions of transgender surgery, which he thought seemed designed to mock midshipmen who had transitioned. It was bad for morale, DeSantis said: After Flemings class, you feel worthless and that you are not here to serve our nation.

The Navy took the complaint and bundled it with other student statementsthe profanities, the unwanted touching. But during the hearing, it didnt take long for the skeptical civilian judge to extract a pattern: The Academy appeared to have spun much of the evidence against Fleming.

The school, for instance, said the professor acted inappropriately in calling DeSantis and another plebe right-wing extremists over e-mail, suggesting he discriminated against conservatives. But the text of the message read like a playful admonishment, and besides, Fleming had as many conservative defenders as liberal ones. The school alleged that Flemings sex talk was inappropriate for the classroom. But sexual topics came up often in English texts. Under questioning, it became clear that the young plebes offense stemmed mainly from the fact that the topics were mentioned at alljust how sex should be this open thing.

Then there was the shirtless picture, the capstone of DeSantiss complaint. In the grainy selfie, the professor is nearly fully cropped from the frame. The real star of the shot is his left bicep. Fleming argued that it was a reference to the Flex, his moniker for a thesis statement. Plebes in the class regularly took photos flexing their biceps and often sent e-mails signed with a row of bicep emoji. It was in reply to one such thread that Fleming sent the selfie, to DeSantis and one other student.

My mom was in tears. . . . My dad, whos a lawyer, was very confused and was like, This is not right, DeSantis testified. It didnt feel right the professor was sending me that type of picture.

What circumstances could possibly mitigate such a screaming indecency? For one, the judge observed, DeSantis, too, had sent Fleming a shirtless photonot of himself but of four half-naked men running through town in Santa caps and underwear. In the Navys own campus culture, a jaunty physicality presided as the secular religionworshiped at events like bodybuilding strip-show nights. At the hearing, all Flemings lawyer had to do was produce a photo of the Herndon ritual, the plebes half-naked bodies glistening with pig lard.

Perhaps for this reason, most of the students who testified werent offended by Fleming. Even the one who experienced what the Navy alleged was unwanted touching recounted that he didnt have a problem with him. Fleming had twice moved a hand across the midshipmans back for about 15 secondslong enough to provoke a little bit of discomfort, the student testified, but not enough to sully a fun course. As he put it, I enjoyed his class.

In fact, Fleming was popularso much so that even the Navys lawyer conceded he was an excellent teacher. A thousand student evaluations over 30 years were 90-percent positive. He genuinely cares about his students in a way no other teacher does, reads one. By far the best instructor I have ever had, said many. A student who chastised FlemingToo much gender f*** nonsenserated him Excellent anyway: He loves us; we love him.

One witness who testified was Anne-Marie Drew, a former chair of the English Department. Hes had some lapses in judgment, she told me. He talks about things that he should leave alone. Her greater concern was the Navys overkill treatment of her colleague, which could have other consequences for the Academy. You dont pull somebody out of the classroom andthendo the investigation, Drew said.

Serious people had taken notice. The American Association of University Professors took the significant step of is-suing a rebuke against Annapolisthe kind of censure, perhaps, more familiar to controversies of progressive excess on liberal campuses.

Drew, who taught for 30 years before retiring last semester, observed that midshipmen on the whole had become increasingly sensitivemore willing, she told me, to say, Well, maam, Im offended by this.

But triggering speech wasnt cause to cut loose a teacher with tenure. He was offended by Brucetheres no doubt he was offended by Bruce, she said. But that doesnt mean that what Bruce did was wrong.

Why would the Academy stake so much on a case that leaked like a Soviet dinghy? In one sense, Fleming had become a symbol of insubordination. To reinstate an employee who failed to demonstrate support for the mission, as the schools lawyer put it, was a concession the Navy couldnt abide.

Most saw the conflict for the complex situation it was. I think its too easy to say Bruce is the villain, John Schofield, a retired naval commander who led the schools public-affairs office until 2016, told me. Bruce, I believe, represents everything thats good about injecting civilians into military education. Nevertheless, Annapolis had to investigatethats what you do when students come forward with serious complaints. I never saw them target Bruce unfairly.

He genuinely cares about his students in a way no other teacher does.

A different picture emerges from the internal Navy documents obtained byWashingtonian,detailing the origins of the Asian soccer-player case. The investigative report reveals that the midshipman didnt initiate the case at all. According to the report, a lieutenant heard a student mention inappropriate conduct involving Fleming and a plebe on the soccer team. The lieutenant pressed for the plebes name, called him in, and typed up the meeting. The readout made its way to Dean Phillips. Five days after that, the plebe sent in his typed complaint. I just kind of let it go, the student later told investigators, citing Flemings tenure and other factors, until [the lieutenant] e-mailed me.

There was something else compelling the Navy to act. While the lieutenant was pressing for the plebes identity, a colleague of Flemings filed a distraught memo. If the allegations (below) against Professor Fleming are true, then it is probable that the English Department is harboring a predator who grooms young male midshipmen for future inappropriate relationships, the memo began. It described an anonymous midshipman, who said that Fleming frequently touched the students while showing them how to wear clothes and a tie. A different instructor said hed witnessed the same thing: Fleming led a student into the bathroom, and when the instructor followed them in, he saw Fleming adjusting clothes on the student, who appeared submissive. The instructor said the student came by Flemings office three days a week and spent 40 minutes there behind closed doors. The report shows the encounter had disturbed the instructor.

To Fleming, the predator insinuation smacked of desperation. Am I coming on to the students? No. Am I screwing the students? No. And the amazing thing is that they seem to be going in the direction of saying I was making gayI was coming on to the students in a gay way. That just blows my mind, he says. I mean, theyve got to make up their minds. Im talking about straight sex. Is it that Im a straight pervert, or a gay pervert?

Perhaps its simpler: In the 21st century, any schoolpublic, private, military, civilianis going to see a case like DeSantiss as part of its duty to protect students.

Whats the conceivable counter-action? Schofield asks. If I got a Speedo photo from any of my professors at Villanovait doesnt matter where youre going to school right now, thats fing wrong. So the Naval Academy sits back and just does nothing?Hes a tenured professor! Hes eccentric! He wears a bow tie! Hes that old, quirky, crazy Bruce!Schofield went on. Then what does the Navy look like in the eyes of the public?

In the eyes of the court, though, the Navy was in the wrong. Administrative judge Mark Syska wrote that DeSantis had severe credibility issues. The aggrieved plebe seemed motivated by his gradethe first C of his academic lifeand appeared to have asked/cajoled/encouraged the other complaining midshipmen to file complaints. Syska suggested that Flemings shirtless photo was a dumb decision. But the Academy couldnt point to any rule that specifically prohibited his actions.

Stepping back, Syska described the events as the perfect storm. An eighteen-year-old from a conservative, religious family who had only attended religious schools and only experienced academic success, versus the profane, irreverent, brutally critical (read admitted very tough grader) and highly theatrical [Fleming] had conflict written all over it. (Through the Academy, DeSantis declined to comment.) The judge ordered Annapolis to reinstate its professor.

Flemings coup has made him a military celebrity. Officers inside the Pentagon know his name, Drew says. Once, on a visit to Guantnamo, a Navy captain approached her. You go back and tell your professors, especially that Bruce Fleming, in your pretty little classrooms at the Academy what its really like out here in the Navy, she recalls him saying.

The Academy hasnt backed down. It appealed the decision. And though it returned Fleming to his title and his office, it has refused to let him teach. Fleming described it as a glass box, collecting a paycheck in an academic purgatory.

Late last year, I arranged to meet him there. By then, hed been sending me dozens of e-mails and texts a day. Many were photos of himself with smiling students. Others were more in character. When I asked for the offending shots, a sequence of shirtless Flemings sprang into view on my phone within the span of a minute. He was undeniably fit. Fk yeah !!! he had appended. Mentally morally and physically baby!

At Annapolis, I found Fleming at his computer, the office mostly empty save for a framed cover of theCapital Gazette:naval academy teacher to be reinstated, including a photo of Fleming mugging in a Superman T-shirt.

Plopped in an armchair, the one reserved for one-on-one life lessons, I was unprepared for the volume and intensity of what unspooled. There was the implosion of Flemings first marriage; the lifelong transgender friend hed supported after her transition; the diagnosis of his autistic daughter; the death of Flemings brother, a cellist in the Kennedy Centers orchestra. Damn straight, I told them to use condoms! Fleming said. I had a gay brother who died of AIDS.

The week he was fired, Fleming was on an airplane with his wife and teenage sons when he had chest pains. Doctors diagnosed a heart attack. The likely cause was stress. When the firing came down just afterward, he said, it was a genuine surprise.

But then there was the ruling: especially sweet revenge. The pictures, the touchingAbsolutely I patted this kid on the back twice, he summarized. So. The f. What. What are you alleging here? He answered his own question. I was charged with not being liked by the administration.

Many colleagues quietly agreed. Unnerved by the whole affair, the Faculty Senate proposed fundamental reforms to the way Annapolis pursues misconduct claims. Drew, the English professor, chaired the committee. They proposed an overhaul: clear standards of evidence and curtailing the tendency to pull professors from the classroom. Their report detailed how faculty had come to fear the Academys unpredictable, secretive, nearly unstoppable investigations, based solely on the claims of a student who has taken offense.

For all their concern, though, faculty wouldnt be donating to any Fleming Defense Fund. He is so high-maintenance, and he doesnt realize it, Drew complained. The department had spent more time on Fleming than on all of its other personnel issues combined. He said, What, am I supposed to be grateful that they saved me from the Nazis? And I said, Yeah, you are! Drew said. Hes got no sense of the harms hes done to the English departmentthe hit that chairs have had to take in order to defend him. And after all that, the school had done nothing more than acknowledge receipt of the facultys report and put it on the shelf.

Outside Bancroft Hall on the day I visited, as Fleming led me through the campus, I posed a crazy question: Had he ever considered apologizingto students, say, or to Phillips?

Fleming planted both feet abruptly. When would I have apologized to him?

He was glowering. Not an apology in earnest, I assured himGod forbidbut simply for tactical value.

But I have no idea what that means.

I laid out a scenario:I care deeply about the midshipmen. Clearly, I missed the mark with some. Ill keep this in mind for next time.Such little effort could do so much, I nudged, to neutralize the Navys portrait of an unfeeling, egomaniacal narcissist.

I was already on the gallows with the noose around my neck. And youre saying: Should I have been nicer to the guy who took me there or something? he asked. He immediately moved to trashing my reputation, to sending out e-mails to all my students saying this man is accused of doing very bad things, he sets up a blah blah blah, and then he fing fires me. And Im supposed to say, Oh, gosh, Im really sorry I hurt this kids feelings? No, I dont think so.

Anyway, Im this fly that has to be squashed, he said. You know, the ugly little guy is always going toobviously Im not ugly, and Im not little, and I dont give up. You know, I have to get on their nerves. If I were more squashable andif I were a cripple or something, or not bright or whatever, I wouldnt get on their nerves as much.

The Academys appeal could take years, Flemings lawyer says, which may be just fine with the school. Every supe that Ive known, Drew told me, has wanted to be the one that could bring down Bruce Fleming.

This article appears in the March 2020 issue of Washingtonian.

Read the original:

The Naval Academy's War with a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minoritiesand Somehow Came Out On Top - Washingtonian