Science v poachers: how tech is transforming wildlife conservation – Financial Times

FT Seasonal Appeal

Tuesday, 19 November, 2019

It is dry season in a Kenyan national park. A small group of poachers walks along a dried-up riverbed, aiming to kill a black rhino and remove its horns, which could fetch as much as $100,000 on the Asian black market.

The men are concealed by undergrowth on the riverbanks but seen by a poaching alarm system developed by the Zoological Society of London. Their guns and knives trigger the Instant Detect systems hidden metal detector, which activates a camera camouflaged in a bush. The images travel by radio to a base station and then via a communications satellite to the park headquarters, alerting the authorities in time to dispatch rangers and catch the gang.

Similar scenarios will soon be playing out in reserves and parks around the globe, as conservation bodies adopt a high-tech approach in their battle to protect animals. Some of these groups were slow to see the potential for new monitoring tools, but with the aid of groups such as Google they are now embracing the devices as a way to tackle poaching.

WWF estimates the illegal wildlife trade is worth about $20bn a year and has contributed to a catastrophic decline in some species. According to the Living Planet Index maintained by WWF and ZSL, the FTs Seasonal Appeal partner for 2019-20, 60 per cent fewer vertebrate animals (mammals, bird, reptiles, amphibians and fish) live wild now than 50 years ago, with the steepest drops in the tropics.

Although huge falls in populations of some well-known species such as tigers, elephants and black rhinos have been halted and even reversed through intensive conservation efforts, poachers are still killing them while numbers of other animals, including pangolins and many monkeys, are declining fast.

There are many drivers behind the loss of biodiversity, from overfishing and climate change to urbanisation and local pollution. But for some species illegal trapping and killing is the biggest factor in their decline, says Andrew Terry, head of conservation at ZSL.

We have a particular focus on tackling the international wildlife trade but that is embedded in our broader conservation efforts, says Mr Terry.

Zoologists have used camera traps to photograph passing animals for decades but until recently these had no wireless connection, so their operators had to physically visit each one to remove its film and later its electronic SD card, which was often full of useless images of moving branches or other wildlife that had triggered the trap.

The odd thing is that conservationists were slow to take up technology, says Eric Dinerstein, director of wildlife and biodiversity at Resolve, a conservation charity based in Washington DC. We jumped in around six years ago because we saw an opportunity to make a difference with a camera trap with intelligence and connectivity.

Other conservation bodies including ZSL began to develop detection technology at about the same time, working with tech companies that see wildlife protection as a showcase for their expertise. Systems such as ZSLs Instant Detect and Resolves TrailGuard are in the final stages of testing and will be soon ready for deployment in the field.

Conservation organisations dont generally have the resources to recruit and employ expensive software engineers and developers, so we depend on collaboration with the tech industry, says Sam Seccombe, Instant Detect project manager. ZSLs partners include Google and Iridium, the satellite communications operator, while Resolve is working with Intel, Microsoft and Inmarsat, another satellite company.

Googles AutoML system, which enables people with limited expertise to develop artificial intelligence for specific purposes such as image recognition, is being deployed in Instant Detect, making it possible to recognise people or animals instantly from camera trap pictures.

A successful business relies on being able to collect, analyse and interpret data rapidly to make the best business decisions, Mr Seccombe says. The same is true for conservationists using camera trap data. By increasing the speed of image analysis, conservation impact can be made more quickly and be more effective.

Remote wildlife parks have little or no mobile phone coverage, so Instant Detect uses its own radio transmitters to send images to a buried base station and then on by satellite to headquarters. ZSL tested the first version of the system by monitoring Antarctic penguins, Canadian bears, Australian night parrots and Kenyan elephants and rhinos. But it suffered from transmission problems, particularly in dense foliage.

The team has developed a more robust and reliable second version, Instant Detect 2.0, which has had successful preliminary tests in Africa and will undergo more extensive trials in the new year in Thailands Western Forest Complex and elsewhere before operational deployment.

Camera quality was also an issue. Nothing on the market met ZSLs specifications so it developed its own 5-megapixel Instant Detect camera with a wide range of focal lengths, triggered either by an inbuilt infrared sensor that detects heat and motion of a passing animal, or by an external metal detector for poachers.It seems ironic that most trail cameras being used by conservationists have been designed for the deer hunting market, says Mr Seccombe.

Although the camera has a powerful computer chip that could run an automatic image processing system on captured pictures to decide whether they are worth transmitting, this feature will not be used initially, so as not to overload the system. Instead, image processing will take place in the cloud after the images have been transmitted.

Another development in the near future will be the integration of acoustic sensors, triggered by sounds such as a gunshot, chainsaw, engine or animal call. ZSL is developing a machine-learning algorithm to detect shots in collaboration with Google.

Resolves TrailGuard, which incorporates Intel vision-processing chips in its cameras, does carry out AI image analysis locally, so that only pictures of human intruders are transmitted extending battery life and cutting transmission costs. The first version of TrailGuard, operating in the Grumeti reserve in Tanzania last year, detected more than 50 intruders and enabled rangers to make 30 arrests from 20 different poaching gangs and seize 1,000kg of illegal bushmeat.

Mr Dinerstein says Resolve is manufacturing 1,000 updated TrailGuard units, 300 in California and 700 in China, for installation in parks in Africa and elsewhere. The US foundation proposes to protect 100 wildlife parks and reserves over the next two years, by placing TrailGuards on the 10 trails used most actively by poachers in each place. Once satellite modems have been installed, the number of cameras can be increased to as many as 100 per park.

Installation would cost a park an estimated $17,000 in the first year and slightly more in the second year, with future operating expenses for data transmission at about $200 a year much less than alternative protection measures such as flying drones to spot poachers or employing additional rangers.

Anthony Dancer, who manages ZSLs tech programme, warns that new technology cannot stop illegal killing on its own. Most protected sites around the world are terribly underfunded, he says. Even if we make the technology available, many places will not have enough resources to manage the technology or enough rangers for a large increase in enforcement.

Besides poaching for meat, horns, teeth, scales, fur and other valuable products, people also kill animals to stop them raiding crops or livestock. Resolve plans to tackle this growing conservation problem by adapting its TrailGuard hardware to identify animals rather than people, for a project called VillageGuard.

Camera traps, installed along trails used by large animals that eat or trample crops or attack livestock, will automatically detect intruders. The first five targets are elephants and lions in Africa, snow leopards and wolves in Nepal, and grizzly bears in the US. Attached speakers will then frighten away the unwanted animals with alarming sounds such as human shouting.

Beyond the detection of threats to wildlife from poachers or angry villagers, conservation bodies are enlisting information technology to track elusive animals. They analyse the rapidly increasing volume of images emerging from camera traps installed around the world. ZSL uses both machine learning and human volunteers for this task.

Several projects are under way to identify animals through AI. The largest collaborative programme, called Wildlife Insights, sits in Google Cloud and combines the companys machine learning expertise with a group of conservation groups including ZSL. It has been trained to recognise 614 different species with 8.7m images supplied by member organisations and expects to expand rapidly as conservationists feed in more data. Initial accuracy ranges from 80 per cent to 98 per cent, depending on the quality of the image and the distinctiveness of the species.

Wildlife Insights is essentially a massive open source system that will enable people around the world to manage and analyse biodiversity data, says Mr Dancer.

While artificial intelligence becomes an ever more powerful tool, humans will always play an essential role in wildlife identification including amateur as well as expert zoologists. Instant Wild is ZSLs free citizen science app that anyone with a smartphone can use to identify animals in camera images; it has been downloaded 130,000 times. Crowdsourcing analysis of this sort is useful for educating and involving the public, as well as directly assisting with species identification.

Thursday, 21 November, 2019

You dont need to be an expert. You just give your best guess, says ZSL project manager Kate Moses. The result only goes through to the project scientist when 10 people have given the same identification.

Technology is also helping the people on the front line of the battle to protect wildlife: the 300,000-400,000rangers and wardens who work in the worlds parks and reserves, according to the International Ranger Federation. A system called Smart (for Spatial Monitoring And Reporting Tool), developed by ZSL and other conservation bodies, enables rangers to collect and sort out data on their mobile devices about the locations of animals and humans, including illegal intruders, in order to deploy scarce staff as efficiently as possible.

Smart is already being used in 900 protected areas around the world. AI software developed by Harvard computer science professor Milind Tambe will be integrated into the system next year. This predicts poachers behaviour, so that patrols can be directed to likely hotspots of illegal activity.

Tuesday, 19 November, 2019

With animal populations under enormous pressure, technology has huge potential for enabling conservation groups to deploy their resources more efficiently in the battle against poaching and the wider illegal wildlife trade.

We urgently need to innovate, and to create new partnerships with industry, governments and academia, to develop new solutions, says Mr Dancer of ZSL. This is where technology and tech partnerships have the potential to be transformational by enabling us to target our resources more efficiently and more effectively, and to scale our impact.

The primary aim of conservationists is to stop poachers killing animals but, when they fail, advances in forensic science can help to catch criminals in the illegal wildlife trade.

Researchers are enhancing fingerprinting technology to improve the chances of obtaining clear prints from people who have handled animal parts.

Working with colleagues at the University of Portsmouth, ZSL scientists are using gel lifters small sheets coated with sticky gelatin to remove fingerprints from pangolin scales and other unpromising materials such as snake skins. The prints are then read with specialist imaging machines.

Another collaboration, involving City of London police and Kings College London, has developed a new magnetic powder that enables investigators to recover human fingerprints from elephant tusks with much better definition than conventional methods. It can recover prints up to four weeks old, giving more time to gather evidence on criminals who have handled ivory seized by police or customs officers.

Conservationists are also using new genetic analysis in two ways to investigate wildlife crime. First, if poachers leave tiny traces of their DNA on ivory, horn or other material, it may be possible to track them down through a genetic fingerprint.

Second, animal DNA extracted from illegally traded materials can be used to trace its geographical origin. This prospect may be particularly applicable to smuggled ivory, as scientists build up a database showing the genetic differences between elephant populations in different parts of Africa.

Scientists at Liverpool John Moores University have used ultrasensitive DNA probes to help spot illegal animal material within large cargo consignments at borders, ports and customs posts. In a proof of concept study published this month they rapidly identified tiny quantities of tiger, rhinoceros and pangolin DNA.

Please help us support ZSLs urgent work by making a donation to the FTs Seasonal Appeal. Click here to donate now.

If you are a UK resident and you donate before December 31, the amount you give will be matched by the UK government up to 2m. This fund-matching will be used to help communities in Nepal and Kenya build sustainable livelihoods, escape poverty and protect their wildlife.

Read more about our Seasonal Appeal partner ZSL:ft.com/zsl-facts

Read the rest here:

Science v poachers: how tech is transforming wildlife conservation - Financial Times

Clean energy technology was thought to be uninvestable. One fund thinks otherwise – CNBC

(This story is part of the Weekend Brief edition of the Evening Brief newsletter. To sign up for CNBC's Evening Brief, click here.)

Venture capital funding for clean energy technology companies has declined after years of lackluster performance drove investors to other sectors. But a new fund is making a big bet that it's possible to back clean tech companies at the earliest and often riskiest stages, all without sacrificing returns.

In October, Clean Energy Ventures announced that it raised $110 million for its first fund, which will target "the current capital gap for seed and early-stage investment in promising advanced energy innovations," a press release said.

The firm's strategy rests on the belief that without reinventing the wheel, and without compromising returns, it can identify and fund scalable, capital-efficient start-ups that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With this influx of capital the fund's three principles, who between them have backed more than 30 early-stage clean tech companies over their combined 40-plus years of investing, are looking to back companies in areas like energy storage, grid connectivity and clean transportation.

"There's a valley of death right now. There's a lot of brilliant technology that's being built but to get to a Series A or Series B it's a long haul," Clean Energy Ventures co-founder Temple Fennell said to CNBC. "Some people consider us a special forces team that's brought in with capital and talent."

In the mid-2000s, the backdrop for clean tech investing seemed almost too good to be true.

Oil and natural gas prices were rising, which accelerated the demand for cheaper renewable energy. The government began issuing tax credits for alternative sources of power. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" captured the nation's attention. Money flowed in as investors looked to profit on the promise of revolutionized industries.

But then the financial crisis hit. It became harder to borrow money. Natural gas prices also dropped, and an oversupply of Chinese-made solar panels flooded the market. Ultimately, more than half of the $25 billion that flowed into the clean tech sector between 2006 and 2011 was lost.

It might seem easy to blame the financial crisis as the primary reason for the failure, but a 2016 research report from the MIT Energy Initiative argued that the majority of companies actually failed for reasons independent of the broader economic backdrop. The venture capital model where investors supply limited funding upfront and expect relatively fast returns was not always conducive to the frequently capital-intensive, longer time frame nature of clean tech companies that were trying to reinvent the landscape.

"Cleantech companies developing new materials, hardware, chemicals, or processes were poorly suited for VC investment because they required significant capital, had long development timelines, were uncompetitive in commodity markets, and were unable to attract corporate acquirers," the authors of "Venture Capital and Cleantech: The Wrong Model for Clean Energy Innovation" wrote in 2016.

After combing through the data, the researchers found that "the biggest money loser for VCs was the segment of cleantech companies commercializing fundamentally new materials and processes." For example, solar companies that tried to replace silicon in solar panels ran into difficulties when trying to scale their model.

That said, other areas that also have capital-intensive models, like medical technology, didn't fare nearly as badly. After comparing the two sectors, the researchers found that there were too few large companies willing to acquire clean tech start-ups. This unwillingness, coupled with the time and capital-restrictive nature of venture capital investing, created a challenging environment for clean tech companies.

More than 90% of clean tech companies funded between 2007 and 2011 failed to return even the initial capital to investors, the MIT Energy Initiative found. So it's no surprise that while the need for greenhouse gas-reducing companies was recognized, for the most part, investors became weary of the space.

Investors were beginning to dip their toes back into clean tech when, in 2017, Clean Energy Ventures decided to begin raising capital for its inaugural fund.

The new fund was spun out of Clean Energy Venture Group, a private investment vehicle through which the founders had been investing in green companies since 2005. Investments included companies like MyEnergywhich was acquired by Nest and then, in turn, by Alphabetand Pika Energy, which was bought by Generac.

Dan Goldman, Temple Fennell and David Miller, the three co-founders of Clean Energy Ventures, had invested together before, but informally. That changed around 2016. They identified a need for funding clean tech companies just starting out which the Street was largely unwilling to consider and, given their deep ties to the clean energy entrepreneurship community, founding a new energy-specific fund seemed a logical next step.

They assembled a team comprised of people skilled both technically and operationally, and who had experience growing a company. Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz was among the people who joined the company's strategic advisory board. Initially targeting a fund size of $75 million, the trio wound up raising $110 million.

From the get-go the fund's strategy has been simple: instead of looking for start-ups that are trying to disrupt entire industries, focus instead on those that can improve existing companies.

"We're constantly looking at where we can disrupt the value chain of existing incumbents," said Fennell.

What that means is that the fund might invest, for example, in material companies whose products will help vehicles become lighter and therefore more carbon efficient, rather than in companies trying to fundamentally change the automotive industry.

Underlying every investment is an actionable plan for how that company can meaningfully contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

"One of our criteria is we only invest in companies that we believe will reduce at least 2.5 gigatons of greenhouse gases or carbon equivalent tons between now and 2050," Fennell said.

While the fund ultimately wound up exceeding its capital target, Fennell said that it was difficult to entice institutional investors back into clean tech. A good bit of their capital instead came from family offices, which typically have more flexible timelines and investing criteria.

Clean Energy Ventures focuses on start-ups in the United States and Canada that are capital-efficient and scalable.

The fund plans to invest in around 25 companies over the next 4-5 years. The goal of every company in which Clean Energy Ventures invests will be, first and foremost, to drastically reduce emissions. But there should also be a clear path toward commercialization within 3-5 years. Given the accelerated time frame, Clean Energy Ventures typically looks for companies that can plug into "the existing infrastructure and the existing incumbent channels."

The firm currently has seven companies in its portfolio, including SparkMeter, Leading Edge Crystal Technologies and LineVision.

SparkMeter, which has also received funding from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, led by Bill Gates, offers smart metering solutions for utility companies typically in remote locations. Leading Edge Crystal Technologies, which was spun out of Applied Materials, is developing cheaper, more efficient, and longer-lasting wafers for solar panels. And LineVision focuses on optimizing power grids' reliability and safety, among other things, by using a network of sensors.

The fund has been known to invest alongside large, publicly traded companies like 3M, Emerson Electric and Applied Materials. Sometimes large companies will even bring startups whose technology they are interested in using to Clean Energy Ventures so that the fund can help them hone and scale their business.

Once the startup has gone through several funding rounds and proven that it has market traction and global scalability, Clean Energy Ventures will typically hand it off to larger partners.

Go here to see the original:

Clean energy technology was thought to be uninvestable. One fund thinks otherwise - CNBC

FMCG firms go on a talent hunt at top business and technology campuses – Economic Times

KOLKATA: Declining rural and urban consumption may have taken a toll on the countrys fast-moving consumer goods makers, but it has not stopped FMCG majors from aggressively scouting for future leaders at top business and technology campuses.

In a testimony to how important campus hiring is as a pipeline of future leadership talent, biggies such as Hindustan Unilever (HUL), ITC, Marico, Godrej and Dabur are expanding their reach across B-schools and top engineering and general colleges, and rolling out new roles for the Class of 2020.

Market leader HUL, for example, has increased its summer internship hiring to top 21 B-schools from top 14 earlier. Marico, which earlier hired only from Tier-1 B schools, has started hiring from IITs and top graduate colleges this year, while Dabur intends to up its intake by 25%. These companies pay between Rs 22-30 lakh to campus recruits.

Many young leaders at Godrej first worked here as summer interns or management trainees before taking on larger roles, said Sumit Mitra, head group HR and corporate services at Godrej Industries and Associated Companies. This is a longer-term talent building investment for us, guided by business priorities and projections. So, it continues to be robust even in a tough year.

This is reassuring news for campuses, where FMCG firms are among the most popular recruiters.

The FMCG sector is going through a rough patch with slowdown in both rural and urban demand. The FMCG market grew only 7.3% by value year on year in the quarter ended September, down from 16.2% growth a year earlier, according to a recent report by market tracker Nielsen. Rural growth dropped below urban levels for the first time in seven years during the September quarter, growing at only 5%, one-fourth of the 20% clocked in the corresponding period in 2018.

Also, several consumer goods and automobiles companies have stayed away from National Institutes of Technology (NITs) this placement season, as ET reported on Monday.

Yet, top FMCG players are apparently going strong on campus placement. No one has told us that theyll go conservative, said Sapna Agarwal, head of career development services at IIM Bangalore. Dabur India is hiring for functions like sales and marketing, supply chain, packaging development, manufacturing, operations and finance, and has even started a new programme of hiring fresh graduates in emerging areas like ecommerce and analytics. We would be nearly 25% higher than the previous year, said V Krishnan, executive director at Dabur India.

A Marico spokesperson said hiring from 2020 batch is higher than from the 2019 batch as the organisations focus on innovation and new categories has opened up newer opportunities. Campus hiring will continue to remain a focus area, the person said. Campus hires are potential business leaders for the organisation in the future.

HUL has stepped up hiring for its Unilever Leadership Internship Programme by increasing the number of campuses by 50%. The company offers early big jobs wherein students just out of campus are entrusted with responsibilities of managing a region with a turnover of more than Rs 100 crore and leading teams of 20-plus people.

Kanwal Kapil, dean of placements at MDI Gurgaon, said despite the downturn in the FMCG sector, the likes of HUL and Reckitt Benckiser were among the new recruiters in the campus during summer placements.

Campus hiring is a critical pillar of ITCs talent acquisition strategy, said Amitav Mukherji, head of corporate HR at ITC that plans to recruit 80-100 students from leading management and technology campuses through summer internship programme and final placements.

At Godrej, salaries have gone up compared to last year and the company will be hiring similar numbers as the last two years, said Mitra. Godrej group hires from MBA programmes centrally for group businesses, while the groups individual businesses also hire separately from general colleges and engineering schools based on their requirements.

Read more from the original source:

FMCG firms go on a talent hunt at top business and technology campuses - Economic Times

The winner of the People’s Choice, Favourite Event Technology Supplier 2019 is The Tekk Group & Tablet Hire! – Event Industry News

The Tekk Group & Tablet Hire is one of the first rental companies in the UK, established in 2010 when iPads and tablets were still new to the world. The plan was to allow businesses to find a huge array of IT rentals, offering affordable prices, with a reliable logistics operation, spanning across the seas. Which is now where we find ourselves.

With offices situated in many major cities and intentions toextend to even more. We are quickly making the dream a reality.

Winning Gold in the Peoples Choice Award category the Event Technology Awards is extra special to us because the votes are made by event professionals who have used our services and believe that what we do deserved a vote. We could not have done this without all the votes from our clients and friends who support us and have helped us grow so quickly in the last few years.

San Malik (Sales Director) commented:

This year has been record breaking for us and winning the Award for The Peoples Choice, Favourite Technology Supplier has been the cherry on top! We are delighted to have been recognised for our consistent service within the industry. The whole team are still buzzing from the win and are so proud to be part of The Tekk Group & Tablet Hire.

Our vison going forward is to allow technology to beaccessible and affordable for everyone. We are an ethical company and plan tocontinue sponsoring our charity partners. They have made it possible for us todonate our older stock to work on borders across the world, assistinggovernments to track venerable individuals and saving lives, as well as foreducation and rehabilitation purposes.

We plan to continue the extension of our offices around theglobe and hope to continue being the service that are faithfully relied on formany event and corporate professionals out there.

Our goal is to nurture partnerships to try and provide thehardware paired with the software solutions, for simple integration intoeveryday lives. Education is key to all our progression and we aim onsupporting every aspect from training to showcasing. So, when you plan onrunning an event and you want an easy and dependable service, at a reasonableprice. Think The Tekk Group and Tablet Hire.

To the winners in our category and every other, for all the nominees. Congratulations and heres to another great year for us all!

This content is sponsored by The Tekk Group & Tablet Hire.

Subscribe to e-newsletter updates Keep up to date with the latest news

Join 15,000 + #eventprofs and get our e-newsletters direct to your inbox

More:

The winner of the People's Choice, Favourite Event Technology Supplier 2019 is The Tekk Group & Tablet Hire! - Event Industry News

Gator Technology opens operations in Midland – Midland Reporter-Telegram

For Sale For Lease

Property Type Single Family Townhouse/Condo Country Homes/Acreage Mid/Hi Rise Condominium Residential Lots Multi Family

Property Type Single Family Townhouse/Condo Country Homes/Acreage Mid/Hi Rise Condominium Residential Lots Multi Family

Min. Price$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000$55,000$60,000$65,000$70,000$75,000$80,000$85,000$90,000$95,000 $100,000$105,000$110,000$115,000$120,000$125,000$130,000$135,000$140,000$145,000$150,000$155,000$160,000$165,000$170,000$175,000$180,000$185,000$190,000 $195,000$200,000$205,000$210,000$215,000$220,000$225,000$230,000$235,000$240,000$245,000$250,000$255,000$260,000$265,000$270,000$275,000$280,000$285,000 $290,000$295,000$300,000$305,000$310,000$315,000$320,000$325,000$330,000$335,000$340,000$345,000$350,000$355,000$360,000$365,000$370,000$375,000$380,000 $385,000$390,000$395,000$400,000$450,000$500,000$550,000$600,000$650,000$700,000$750,000$800,000$850,000$900,000$950,000$1,000,000$1,100,000$1,200,000$1,300,000 $1,400,000$1,500,000$1,600,000$1,700,000$1,800,000$1,900,000$2 Mil$3 Mil$4 Mil$5 Mil$6 Mil$7 Mil$8 Mil$9 Mil$10 Mil

Min. Price100 /m150 /m200 /m250 /m300 /m350 /m400 /m450 /m500 /m550 /m600 /m650 /m700 /m750 /m800 /m850 /m900 /m950 /m1,000 /m 1,050 /m1,100 /m1,150 /m1,200 /m1,250 /m1,300 /m1,350 /m1,400 /m1,450 /m1,500 /m1,550 /m1,600 /m1,650 /m1,700 /m1,750 /m1,800 /m1,850 /m1,900 /m1,950 /m 2,000 /m2,050 /m2,100 /m2,150 /m2,200 /m2,250 /m2,300 /m2,350 /m2,400 /m2,450 /m2,500 /m2,600 /m2,700 /m2,800 /m2,900 /m3,000 /m3,500 /m4,000 /m4,500 /m 5,000 /m5,500 /m6,000 /m6,500 /m7,000 /m7,500 /m8,000 /m8,500 /m9,000 /m9,500 /m10,000 /m

Max. Price$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000$55,000$60,000$65,000$70,000$75,000$80,000$85,000$90,000$95,000 $100,000$105,000$110,000$115,000$120,000$125,000$130,000$135,000$140,000$145,000$150,000$155,000$160,000$165,000$170,000$175,000$180,000$185,000$190,000 $195,000$200,000$205,000$210,000$215,000$220,000$225,000$230,000$235,000$240,000$245,000$250,000$255,000$260,000$265,000$270,000$275,000$280,000$285,000 $290,000$295,000$300,000$305,000$310,000$315,000$320,000$325,000$330,000$335,000$340,000$345,000$350,000$355,000$360,000$365,000$370,000$375,000$380,000 $385,000$390,000$395,000$400,000$450,000$500,000$550,000$600,000$650,000$700,000$750,000$800,000$850,000$900,000$950,000$1,000,000$1,100,000$1,200,000$1,300,000 $1,400,000$1,500,000$1,600,000$1,700,000$1,800,000$1,900,000$2 Mil$3 Mil$4 Mil$5 Mil$6 Mil$7 Mil$8 Mil$9 Mil$10 Mil

Max. Price100 /m150 /m200 /m250 /m300 /m350 /m400 /m450 /m500 /m550 /m600 /m650 /m700 /m750 /m800 /m850 /m900 /m950 /m1,000 /m 1,050 /m1,100 /m1,150 /m1,200 /m1,250 /m1,300 /m1,350 /m1,400 /m1,450 /m1,500 /m1,550 /m1,600 /m1,650 /m1,700 /m1,750 /m1,800 /m1,850 /m1,900 /m1,950 /m 2,000 /m2,050 /m2,100 /m2,150 /m2,200 /m2,250 /m2,300 /m2,350 /m2,400 /m2,450 /m2,500 /m2,600 /m2,700 /m2,800 /m2,900 /m3,000 /m3,500 /m4,000 /m4,500 /m 5,000 /m5,500 /m6,000 /m6,500 /m7,000 /m7,500 /m8,000 /m8,500 /m9,000 /m9,500 /m10,000 /m

Min. Beds 1 Bed 2 Beds 3 Beds 4 Beds 5 Beds 6 Beds 7 Beds 8 Beds 9 Beds

Min. Baths 1 Bath 2 Baths 3 Baths 4 Baths 5 Baths 6 Baths 7 Baths 8 Baths 9 Baths

The rest is here:

Gator Technology opens operations in Midland - Midland Reporter-Telegram

Better technology helped contain onion crop damage due to erratic monsoon – Business Standard

At a time when onion prices are soaring across the country due to a supply squeeze, a recent survey by Pune-based Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Directorate of Onion and Garlic Research (DOGR) has revealed that farmers employing better technology were able to contain onion crop damage.

The survey, monitoring the effect of erratic monsoon on kharif and late kharif crops in major onion-growing districts of Maharashtra Pune, Ahmednagar and Nasik showed: Heavy rains affected the entire kharif harvest, late kharif standing crop, and rabi nursery. The intensity of kharif crop damage could have been up to 80 per cent in Baramati and Purandar, where the crop was under waterlogged conditions, as farmers practised the flat-bed system of planting, with a poor drainage.

In some areas, heavy infestation of diseases damaged late kharif crop by up to 60 per cent. Besides, rabi onion nurseries suffered up to 50 per cent damage, with heavy rainfall drastically reducing the rabi planting area.

According to Major Singh, a director in DOGR, farmers who employed better technology incurred much less damage.

Singh said in the survey report that some farmers in Purandar who followed the ICAR-DOGR recommendation of raised-bed plantation along with drip irrigation in onion crop suffered only 20 per cent to 30 per cent damage, despite erratic rains. We observed that the main cause for kharif onion yield loss was poor drainage in main fields exposing plants to prolonged periods of waterlogged stress. Under a climate-change scenario, similar unprecedented rainfall events might recur, so we need to create awareness among farmers about the kharif onion production with raised-bed planting, as recommended by ICAR-DOGR, he added.

On price analysis, the survey report said: "Usually kharif onion produce hits the market by October. But, due to heavy rains in 2019, its arrival was delayed to November. According to information from Lasalgaon APMC, kharif onion arrivals this year fell to 2,818 quintals from 50,824 quintals in November 2018. This resulted in an onion shortage in the supply chain, and a price hike thereby."

More:

Better technology helped contain onion crop damage due to erratic monsoon - Business Standard

The top technologies that enabled digital transformation this decade – TechRepublic

These technologies enable enterprises to digitally transform the way people interact with each other and their surroundings.

As the decade comes to a close, and we think back to the distant times of 2010, it becomes apparent that the 2010s were a decade of unimaginable digital transformation.

Google, Amazon, Uber, Facebook, and Twitter are some of the major tech companies that have fundamentally changed society. Groundbreaking innovations have revamped actions like communicating with loved ones, ordering food, or hailing a cab. Backing these transformative platforms are thousands of coders, scientists, and researchers, who spend years building new technologies designed to address any and all human concerns or needs.

These are some of the technologies that enabled digital transformation since 2010.

SEE: Digital transformation: A CXO's guide (ZDNet/TechRepublic special feature) | Download the free PDF version (TechRepublic)

The introduction of widespread cloud computing has democratized data collection and increased the capacity of enterprises, allowing companies of any size to forgo the need for costly IT infrastructures and cumbersome maintenance regimens. According to a TechRepublic survey, nearly 70% of companies are either using or considering cloud services.

By moving most services to the cloud, businesses can stay nimble and better manage scale than ever before. The lowering prices of cloud computing have led to the rapid growth of "as-a-service" systems that have given smaller companies access to tools that were previously far too costly. Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google, Microsoft, and Alibaba are the biggest cloud titans battling it out for supremacy over the market.

With Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) systems all gaining popularity, cloud computing will be one of the defining elements of the next decade. A recent report from Forrester said the public cloud market will reach $411 billion by 2022. The report added that the four leading cloud vendors will generate 75% of the entire $75.4 billion global public cloud infrastructure market.

SEE:More from our Decade in Review series(TechRepublic on Flipboard)

Forrester recently said that enterprises across the world are increasingly turning to automation for a variety of tasks that used to be handled by humans. This is changing the workforce on a fundamental level, prompting fears in the next decade of mass job losses.

But the field is also making enterprises better in a variety of concrete ways. Dangerous, time-consuming jobs at factories are increasingly being done by an army of robots, keeping people away from positions that have historically been damaging to their health.

This has even bled into other fields like customer service, where many companies now use automated systems to respond to basic questions and complaints from consumers.

Part of what's spurring the increase in automation is the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), which is equipping robots and machines with a wider set of capabilities. Enterprises are using AI for everything from security to human resources, allowing computers to handle tasks that have become costly or redundant.

While fears of automation and AI are very real, recent studies have shown that people actually like the introduction of automation and are generally happy computers or robots can handle menial tasks.

SEE: Digital Transformation ebook: Guide to becoming a digital transformation champion (TechRepublic Premium)

The last decade has seen an explosion of access to smartphones, bringing whole continents of people onto the web for the first time. The popularity of smartphones has prompted the creation of an entire ecosystem of mobile apps and tools that people now consider integral parts of their lives.

Uber and Lyft have become verbs, while food delivery apps like Seamless and GrubHub are wildly popular. People use apps to regulate and manage every aspect of their lives, using calendar platforms, workout assistants, and voice memo programs.

Even the way we communicate with each other has changed through our increased smartphone usage. Apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger are the primary mode of communication for billions of people, who send secure text messages, photos, and voice messages across the world in seconds.

Google Maps and other transit apps have made it almost impossible to get lost, with some apps even going so far as to let New Yorkers know what end of the subway to sit for the easiest exit. People can send money to each other, buy movie tickets, and watch their favorite show--all from a device the size of their hand.

There are so many apps emerging that their development has become a running joke for millenials, who regardless of industry, can cite it as a potential source of employment. Expect more of our daily problems to find app-based solutions.

4G has become so widespread that people take for granted the fact that wireless internet access is relatively new.

Mobile operators began rolling out 4G widely around 2012, offering more people download and upload speeds several times faster than 3G. 4G was a game changer because it was faster and more reliable that anything 3G could offer, providing somewhat of a replacement for slow fixed-line broadband; it was also significantly cheaper than 3G.

Coverage steadily increased as the decade rolled along and with the introduction of 5G this year, mobile operators are preparing for even more evolution when a wider rollout begins next year. To give people some idea of the scale of the shift between the two, one analyst compared 4G and 5G to the telegraph industry implementing a staged transition to fax at the end of the 19th century.

The onset of 4G coincided with the widespread adoption of smartphones and other devices, increasingly making more people mobile in more settings.

SEE: Mini-glossary: 5G terms you should know (free PDF) (TechRepublic)

The miniaturization of sensors has changed supply chains across the world, allowing for greater information collection and more organized systems.

Industries like manufacturing and retail have outfitted trucks, storage facilities, and factories with Internet of Things (IoT) devices and other smart tools that can collect information about how they're used and provide insights into how things can be optimized or streamlined.

The industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) has even become its own field of expertise, allowing companies to collect data on their machines and tools before using machine learning or artificial intelligence to analyze it and provide recommendations.

These systems can even make the workplace safer for employees in some instances, while highlighting places where costs could potentially be reduced. Businesses can study weak spots and see how to limit interruptions in service or catch problems before they crop up.

As more of the workplace is outfitted with this kind of technology and the tools to analyze data improve, expect companies to find even more avenues to optimize their services.

SEE: Digital transformation in manufacturing: A guide for business pros (TechRepublic Premium)

The value of our data is becoming more apparent as more countries begin to pass laws regulating how companies collect and share it. But the ability to analyze the troves of data websites and services collect on us has been able to help businesses transform and adapt to the changes of their industry.

Morgan Stanley recently called the 2010s "the data decade." The improvements in artificial intelligence and machine learning have given enterprises a way to search and sort through data, pulling the most useful insights that can help businesses change with their customers.

Gartner distinguished analyst in Data Analytics & Strategy Douglas Laney said earlier this year that by 2022, 90% of companies will have detailed business plans that "explicitly mention information as a critical enterprise asset and analytics as an essential competency."

It's easier for enterprises to make sound long-term decisions when leaders are using accurate data that has been analyzed and sorted. Some companies are now looking to data for short-term insights as well, opting for platforms that can give real-time information based on an ever-increasing set of data.

SEE: America's coolest company: How Big Ass Fans went from cooling cows to a multinational tech powerhouse (cover story PDF) (TechRepublic)

While Facebook already existed by 2010, the social media industry looks completely different than it did back then, and some of the biggest sites have since emerged.

Instagram, Snapchat, and Pinterest all came to fruition after 2010, and both Facebook and Twitter have changed drastically since they first debuted. The numbers are now staggering, with billions of avid users on multiple social media sites across the world sharing their thoughts, photos, and more.

SEE: Facebook data privacy scandal: A cheat sheet (TechRepublic)

It would be unthinkable to go back in time and explain to people that it is now required for almost all companies and world leaders to have official Twitter and Facebook accounts. Social media has become one of the most important ways for corporations and leaders to communicate with and hear from people, but it has lead to an unprecedented amount of visibility into the whims and moods of the world's most powerful.

While there has been some backlash against social media sites since 2016, user numbers show no signs of decreasing, and the increasing popularization of smartphones will bring billions more online in the next decade.

Blockchain has invaded almost every industry because of its wide applicability to almost any business that needs a more organized supply chain or increase verification.

After debuting in 2008 as part of cryptocurrency efforts, the distributed ledger technology was quickly spun off into its own field and adopted heavily by the financial industry. For more than five years, banks and financial institutions have used it for everything from smart contracts to the simplification of loan applications. A consortium of banks in Canada have even used the technology to give people more power over the data collected by financial institutions.

In the last two to three years, dozens of industries have begun research into the effectiveness of blockchain, and it has had the greatest impact on supply chains.

Huge retailers like Walmart and fast food companies like McDonalds now use blockchain to source materials and food.

Brazil recently hired IBM to create a blockchain system that would manage the country's birth and death record system, which had been rife with abuse for decades.

Discover the secrets to IT leadership success with these tips on project management, budgets, and dealing with day-to-day challenges. Delivered Tuesdays and Thursdays

Image: metamorworks, Getty Images/iStockphoto

Continue reading here:

The top technologies that enabled digital transformation this decade - TechRepublic

GSMA: Mobile Technologies and Services Adding $191 Billion a Year of Economic Value to Middle East and North Africa – MarTech Series

5G and IoT Adoption to Drive Economic Impact to More Than $220 Billion by 2023

The GSMA has released two new reports at the annual GSMA Mobile 360 MENA event happening in Dubai. These reports highlight the positive economic impact of the mobile ecosystem on markets across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, as well as the transformative impact of IoT technologies on regional governments strategic national visions.

The two reports from GSMA Intelligence The Mobile Economy: Middle East and North Africa 2019 and Realising the potential of IoT in MENA reveal that mobile technologies and services added $191 billion to the regions economy in 2018 equivalent to about 4.5 per cent of regional GDP. By 2023, mobiles economic contribution is forecast to reach more than $220 billion as countries increasingly benefit from the improvements in productivity and efficiency brought about by the increased uptake of mobile services, and 5G and IoT networks are widely deployed.

Marketing Technology News: Vonage Names Former SAP Executive Rodolpho Cardenuto President of the Applications Group

To date 12 operators have launched commercial 5G services in five Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Arab States. Mobile operators in these countries are aiming to be global leaders in 5G deployments, supporting the digital transformation ambitions outlined in strategic national visions such as UAE Vision 2021 and Saudi Vision 2030.

Meanwhile, IoT connections in the MENA region are growing at a rate second only to Asia-Pacific. There are forecast to be 470 million IoT connections in MENA by the end of 2019, rising to 1.1 billion by 2025. The deployment of IoT across MENA is expected to add $18 billion to regional GDP by 2025.

Marketing Technology News: Toppan and D-ID Sign Strategic Partnership Agreement

Backed by proactive government support, mobile operators, particularly in the GCC Arab States, have speedily deployed 5G technology, said Mats Granryd, Director General of the GSMA. Beyond the GCC, the wider MENA region has an opportunity to benefit from the technological developments delivered by 5G and IoT. To fully embrace those benefits the regions governments must support regulatory frameworks and policies that ensure 5G flourishes, including making sufficient spectrum available.

Marketing Technology News: DeleteMe Expands to Help Journalists and Media Professionals Protect Personal Information Online

Original post:

GSMA: Mobile Technologies and Services Adding $191 Billion a Year of Economic Value to Middle East and North Africa - MarTech Series

Canada ahead of the U.S. with some air traffic control technologies – KING5.com

SEATTLE If youre like millions of Americans this holiday season, theres a good chance youll be taking a flight somewhere. Even if youre not flying yourself, you may well be visiting an airport to pick somebody up or drop them off.

The part you wont see is the inside of an air traffic control tower. It's a darkened room full of screens and air traffic controllers at a terminal radar control facility, or an en-route center that handles flights between cities.

Given Washington's close proximity to the Canadian border, many residents often fly over U.S. and Canadian air traffic control centers.

In many ways, Canadian ATC technology is ahead of the United State's.

In 1996, Canadas air traffic control system was sold by the government and became a private, not for profit corporation known as NAV Canada. Even if you've never set foot in Canada, if youve ever been a passenger aboard an airliner between Seattle and Europe, odds are pretty high that youve flown through Canadian air space to get there and back.

NAV Canada has been widely credited with being able to bring new technologies on faster. Part of that is credited with its ability to borrow money on the private market. Its funding largely comes from fees charged to airlines, including those that fly over the country.

As an example, NAV Canada finished shifting from paper flight strips used to manage aircraft in its air traffic control towers to electronic ones back in 2010. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is only beginning to use electronic strips as part of its NextGen program, and those towers equipped with electronic strips are at Phoenix and Charlotte, North Carolina. Sea-Tac is not scheduled to go to electronic strips until 2025.

It also plays out in other ways-- the Canadian integrated air traffic management system known as NAVCANatm is now being used in London, elsewhere in Europe, Australia and countries in the Middle East.

But the FAA is no slouch when it comes to air traffic control, and the U.S. is a country where flying has never been safer. While still part the government, its also a system serving a country 10 times larger than Canadas, serving 44,000 flights a day and 3 million passengers, according to agency numbers.

One area where the FAA is running ahead is enhancing the situational awareness for pilots and helping them avoid mid-air collisions. And not just airline pilots, but all pilots through a technology known as ADS-Bstanding for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast.

By Jan. 1, 2020, all aircraft, whether theyre airliners or single-seaters, will have to be ADS-B equipped to fly in controlled airspace. With rare exceptions, thats pretty much everybody. Even some drones are being equipped to receive ADS-B signals from another aircraft to automatically get out of the way.

Canada is still working through its universal ADS-B requirements, which also uses more satellite technology, but its not expected to be fully mandatory possibly until 2024.

Read more:

Canada ahead of the U.S. with some air traffic control technologies - KING5.com

Tim Berners-Lee unveils global plan to save the web – The Guardian

Sir Tim Berners-Lee has launched a global action plan to save the web from political manipulation, fake news, privacy violations and other malign forces that threaten to plunge the world into a digital dystopia.

The Contract for the Web requires endorsing governments, companies and individuals to make concrete commitments to protect the web from abuse and ensure it benefits humanity.

I think peoples fear of bad things happening on the internet is becoming, justifiably, greater and greater, Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, told the Guardian. If we leave the web as it is, theres a very large number of things that will go wrong. We could end up with a digital dystopia if we dont turn things around. Its not that we need a 10-year plan for the web, we need to turn the web around now.

The contract, which has been worked on by 80 organisations for more than a year, outlines nine central principles to safeguard the web three each for governments, companies and individuals.

The document, published by Berners-Lees Web Foundation, has the backing of more than 150 organisations, from Microsoft, Twitter, Google and Facebook to the digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation. At the time of writing, Amazon had not endorsed the principles.

Those who back the contract must show they are implementing the principles and working on solutions to the tougher problems, or face being removed from the list of endorsers. If the stipulation is properly enforced, some may not last long. A report from Amnesty International accuses Google and Facebook of enabling human rights harm at a population scale. The report comes weeks after Google was found to have acquired the personal health records of 50 million Americans without their consent.

The contracts principles require governments to do all they can to ensure that everyone who wants to can connect to the web and have their privacy respected. People should have access to whatever personal data is held on them and have the right to object or withdraw from having that data processed.

Further principles oblige companies to make internet access affordable and calls on them to develop web services for people with disabilities and those who speak minority languages. To build trust online, companies are compelled to simplify privacy settings by providing control panels where people can access their data and manage their privacy options in one place.

Another principle requires companies to diversify their workforces, consult broad communities before and after they release new products, and assess the risk of their technology spreading misinformation or harming peoples behaviour or personal wellbeing.

Three more principles call on individuals to create rich and relevant content to make the web a valuable place, build strong online communities where everyone feels safe and welcome, and finally, to fight for the web, so it remains open to everyone, everywhere.

The forces taking the web in the wrong direction have always been very strong, Berners-Lee said. Whether youre a company or a government, controlling the web is a way to make huge profits, or a way of ensuring you remain in power. The people are arguably the most important part of this, because its only the people who will be motivated to hold the other two to account.

Emily Sharpe, the director of policy at the Web Foundation, said: The webs power to be a force for good is under threat and people are crying out for change. We are determined to shape that debate using the framework that the Contract sets out.

Ultimately, we need a global movement for the web like we now have for the environment, so that governments and companies are far more responsive to citizens than they are today. The contract lays the foundations for that movement.

This article was amended on 25 November 2019 to include Twitter among the signatories.

Here is the original post:

Tim Berners-Lee unveils global plan to save the web - The Guardian

Accenture appoints Scott Hahn as its technology lead for Australia and New Zealand – mUmBRELLA*

Accenture has appointed Scott Hahn as its technology lead for Australia and New Zealand.

Hahns new role will span Accenture Labs, Application Services and its list of strategic alliance partners, and will see him take on building Accentures advanced technology capabilities.

Hahn has been with Accenture for over 30 years

Hahn has been with Accenture since 1988 when he started out in the US as a manager. In 1999 he was promoted to global client account lead and in 2017 he was elevated to AAPAC SAP business group lead.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hahn said of his new role: I am very excited about the opportunity to lead the technology team in Australia and New Zealand, and to help clients transform their businesses, drive value and accelerate growth.

Powered by data, applied intelligence, cloud and intelligent platforms, I look forward to bringing the best of Accentures local and global capabilities to help accelerate innovation at scale in this region.

Bob Easton, chairman of Accenture Australia and New Zealand, commented: Our clients recognise the opportunity to leverage technology to transform at speed and scale. Scott brings a wealth of experience advising companies, and leading high performing teams around the world. He will bring new insights and create new opportunities for our teams and clients.

Earlier this month, it was announced that Accenture would undergo a round of redundancies, with up to 70 underperforming managing directors set to leave the business.

A day earlier, The Monkeys Mark Green became the lead of Accenture Interactive Australia and New Zealand, with Justin Drape and Scott Nowell taking on co-chief creative officer roles. Michael Buckley departed his role as managing director of Accenture Interactive AUNZ in May this year.

Accenture Interactive announced its acquisition of global creative agency, Droga 5, in April.

Read the original:

Accenture appoints Scott Hahn as its technology lead for Australia and New Zealand - mUmBRELLA*

We must not allow bigots to hide behind free speech on campus – The Hechinger Report

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Indiana University in Bloomington Indiana. Students at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana demanded that officials fire professor Eric Rasmusen, after he posted racist, sexist and homophobic opinions to social media earlier this month. Photo: Don & Melinda Crawford/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

If your professor at a public university regularly tweets out articles like Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably you would probably be confused as to why he taught students. If, after class, you read tweets by the same professor saying that black students are generally inferior academically to white students and that members of the LBGTQ community only want marriage rights to get spousal fringe benefits from the government, you might find fault with your professors boss for not firing the prejudiced chauvinist.

We should expect students, faculty and staff members with a modicum of dignity to call for that professors ouster. No student should be subjected to a professor who moonlights as a bigot. However, what may not be tolerated in other workplaces sometimes gets a free pass in colleges and universities, which adhere robustly to the value of free speech.

Free speech is tied to academic freedom the autonomy to teach and research ideas without the consequence of retaliation. The quality of a professors ideas is enhanced when scholarship isnt tethered to profits, political motives and/or the propaganda of hate groups. Colleges defend professors rights to pursue controversial topics of discussion such as climate change, police brutality, charter schools and pornography. University professors conduct clinical trials and other experiments in which the integrity of that work demands free speech.

Yet as noble as that sounds, higher educations loyalty to free speech can also protect chauvinists like Indiana University Bloomington professor Eric Rasmusen, who posted the bigoted tweets about women and others using his private social media accounts. Rasmusen understandably has come under fire for a history of racist, sexist and homophobic social media posts.

Protecting core principles matters but so does leadership. As the presence of hate groups spreads on campus, reflecting the growing diversity of beliefs in society, its important that university leaders properly balance free speech and academic freedom with facts, inclusion and social cohesion. A person who believes in the illogical notion that women, black and gay people are inferior to white men has as much a place in an institution of learning as a person who believes pigs can fly but the bigot is far more dangerous. How university administrators (and leaders in general) address past and present discrimination influences the kind of world we will live in in the future.

Related: HBCUs are leading centers of education why are they treated as second-class citizens?

Rasmusens boss, Lauren Robel, provost at Indiana University Bloomington, sets a fine example of the leadership we need. As absurd as it may seem, firing Rasmusen would compromise the pillars of higher education: free speech and academic freedom. However, Robel has done everything within her power to confront the discrimination that erodes basic values of truth, democracy and community. Robel is allowing students enrolled in Rasmusens class to transfer into another section. Students can also get out of taking a required course from Rasmusen. In addition, Robel will require Rasmusen to grade assignments without knowing the identities of the students in the class, an attempt to buffer against the biases he laid bare on Twitter.

Compare Robels actions to those of another university leader in the same state, and youll see why leadership is so important. In response to a students question on how to improve the campus for minority students, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, a former governor of Indiana, touted an initiative to bring more inner-city students to campus. Daniels also said, I will be recruiting one of the rarest creatures in America: a leading, I mean a really leading African American scholar.

Students immediately took offense.

Creatures? said DYan Berry, president of the Black Student Union. Come on. Referring to African American scholars as rare creatures sounds right out of Rasmusens Twitter feed.

Responding to the backlash, Daniels explained he was referring to extraordinarily rare talent and told the Journal and Courier, part of the USA Today network, I never felt so misunderstood before.

Related: Students take their future into their own hands on climate change activism

To be clear, there are extraordinarily talented black scholars in many fields; predominately white higher education leaders simply dont hire and invest in black professors development in the same way as their white peers, resulting in their underrepresentation. Protected professors dont see the value in proactively championing diversity and inclusion. The beauty of Robels actions is that she showed how good leaders can work within systems to correct glaring problems. Its an approach Daniels should emulate.

According to the Journal and Couriers analysis of Purdues published diversity numbers, 8.3 percent (161 of 1,931) of tenured or tenure-track professors in 2018 were recorded as underrepresented minorities. In 2013, when Daniels started his tenure at Purdue, that stat was 6.3 percent (117 of 1,849).

Those numbers are moving in the right direction, but they still warrant scrutiny from concerned students, faculty and staff. Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and American Indian faculty make up 4 percent, 3 percent, 11 percent, and less than 1 percent of full-time professors in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

We desperately need academic leadership that can stand up for whats right and stand up to white supremacists and white supremacy. Just last week, CNN reported five incidents of hate that occurred across the country. At the University of Georgia, someone drew swastikas on a whiteboard on the door of a Jewish womans dorm room. Another swastika was carved into a door of an Iowa State dormitory, and racist stickers and posters appeared around campus. Racist graffiti was found at the University of Syracuse during a two-week run of incidents of hate-driven harassment. At the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a thread of a racist post from a private SnapChat account became public, setting off a firestorm of concern on campus. And a noose was hung in the common area of a dormitory. Lets hope that university leaders on these campuses address their issues as Robel did, because a lack of leadership is how we got here.

Related: As Republicans stress political fiction over facts, students math and reading scores fall

Academics dont have to tweet out bigotry to make their beliefs known. Colleges curricula and admissions policies do the talking on their behalf. For most of the twentieth century, Asians, Blacks, Latinos/Latinas and Native Americans were excluded or restricted from the academic offerings and leadership positions in most colleges and universities. People of color who were allowed on campus were insignificant in number or primarily relegated to service, housekeeping or grounds positions. If you want to learn more about racist customs of fraternities and sororities, including the tradition of wearing blackface, just thumb through a campus yearbook.

When campuses begin to value black and brown lives, youll see the presence of authors of color throughout course syllabi as well as more than a token handful of people of color in the student body and faculty. Youll see administrators commitments to affirmative action codified in policy and funding allocations dedicated to creating a positive racial climate. Over time, actions like these will seed the kind of campus where bigotry is cut off at the root and publicly condemned when it isnt.

Academic freedom and bigotry cant coexist on campus. Robel has demonstrated one way to tackle bigots who falsely claim the mantle of free speech. Now we need a new generation of college and university leaders to stand up for the values that create an inclusive learning environment for all.

This story free speech on campus was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechingers newsletter.

Join us today.

Link:

We must not allow bigots to hide behind free speech on campus - The Hechinger Report

Devine: Feast on free speech this Thanksgiving – New York Post

As families gather for Thanksgiving in our polarized era, theres no shortage of advice about how to cope with the crazy Trump-lover in your family.

Your angry uncle wants to talk about impeachment. What do you do? go the headlines.

Theres nothing like a constitutional crisis to spice up the holidays.

Of course, the abhorrent relative in these scenarios is always a conservative but, for the sake of argument, not to mention reality, lets say it equally could be a progressive.

It might be your newly politically correct college kid home for Thanksgiving break from Ohio who has decided its her moral duty to re-educate the family.

Believe it or not, leftists can be obnoxious, too.

The polite way to maintain harmony used to be to avoid any discussion of politics or religion around the dinner table. But there may be a better way.

A timely new documentary about free speech that opens next week in New York argues that its crucial for the health of our nation to expose yourself to ideas you dislike and learn how to disagree respectfully.

No Safe Spaces stars conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager and libertarian comedian Adam Carolla.

While they disagree a lot, theyre also friends. Carolla explains their odd-couple pairing early on, saying hes always asked: Why are you friends with Dennis Prager? You have nothing in common . . .

He comes from the East. I come from the West. He comes from religion. I come from atheism . . . He comes from college and knowledge. I come from tomfoolery and sports. And yet we both share a little something called common sense in values [which] should trump everything. It should trump LGBT . . . It should trump Chicano . . . It should trump black. It should trump Trump.

They trace the origins of cancel culture on campus back to 2013, when students started demanding speech codes and trigger warnings.

It evolved into violent protests stopping campus speeches by right-wing agitators such as Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, and the less easily pigeonholed psychology professor Jordan Peterson and red-pilled liberals such as Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein.

What they have in common, along with Prager and Carolla, is theyve been banned or hounded off campuses, often violently.

We see violent protests at UC Berkeley, the epicenter of campus free speech in the 60s, where students now riot to shut down speech that offends them.

Conservative students are shown being punched in the face, abused and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect ideas.

Isabella Chow, a student senator at UC Berkeley last year when she abstained from a vote affirming gender fluidity because she is a Christian, says the backlash shocked her.

Hundreds of protesters demanded she be removed from the senate, and she was booted out of every student organization and voted out of every student club.

It was difficult to hear accusations of people calling me a bigot and a hater.

But its not just conservatives falling victim. Liberals who inadvertently break increasingly capricious speech codes also are being shut down.

If you have any spark of individualism in you, anything about you thats interesting or different, they will come to destroy that, too, warns liberal talk show host Rubin.

Weinstein was a liberal professor hounded out of The Evergreen State College in Washington state after refusing to take part in a 2017 stunt requiring all white people stay away from campus for the day. This was anathema to me as a liberal, he says.

When violent protests against him paralyzed the college, police said they could not protect him.

He warns that Evergreen is just a preview.

This is going to spread into every quadrant of society . . . Evergreen is describing a future that is rapidly approaching.

Toward the end of No Safe Spaces, Prager polls a group of college students on their support for free speech, and finds theyre evenly split. One student declares she draws the line at Nazis.

It couldnt have been a better opening for Prager to explain that free speech is valuable only if it protects offensive, obnoxious views.

It is our trial-and-error way of sorting out good ideas from bad. Since you cant stop people secretly holding bad thoughts, silencing them just pushes bad ideas underground, where they fester and grow more virulent.

Allowing bad ideas free expression allows them to be mocked and countered with good ideas.

Im a Jew, says Prager, and Nazis killed 6 million Jews . . . so I have a real hatred of Nazis. But I feel they should be able to speak freely in America because if we say to the Nazis today, You cant speak, well say to a non-Nazi tomorrow, You cant speak either. And we hope, if everyone speaks, that good ideas win.

So speak your mind to your family today in good-natured fashion and give thanks that you live in a country where good ideas still have a chance.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.

Proof, again, that theyre the Finest

After a summer of taking abuse, its worth noting that the NYPD is the unofficial social safety net for New Yorkers.

Take Officers Ricardo Roman and Samuel Baez, of the 10th Precinct in Chelsea, who bought a homeless man a suit, glasses and a haircut last month so he could interview for jobs.

Wilfredo Falman Jr., 34, scored work at Kobrick Coffee Co., a cafe in the Meatpacking District.

He urges New Yorkers to give thanks for the officers: They have helped me see the police in a different light.

By Wednesday, Falman had raised $2,463 on GoFundMe, of which his lawyers, the Khan Johnson firm, say he has donated half ($1,172.34 minus costs) to the GLS Memorial Fund, which provides tuition assistance to relatives of police officers.

Feel free to criticize AOC

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is furious at critics who dismiss her policies as free stuff.

These are public goods . . . So I never want to hear the word or the term free stuff ever again, the socialist Democratic congresswoman ranted at a Green New Deal town hall in the Bronx this week.

Who made AOC language boss? We say free stuff because it describes unfunded policies for tuition-free college, Medicare for all and public housing for anyone who wants it.

She doesnt like the phrase free stuff because everyone knows there is no such thing. Someone has to pay for it and, eventually, if you pluck the golden goose enough, it dies.

Wealth creators move to greener pastures, you lose your tax base and any ability to fund even the most worthwhile public projects.

Who could forget it was AOC and friends who drove Amazon out of New York, along with its 25,000 jobs?

Of course, in AOCs utopia, who needs a job when theres free stuff to be had? Can someone please pay for a study tour of Venezuela?

Read more here:

Devine: Feast on free speech this Thanksgiving - New York Post

Balancing free speech and safety on campus – The Signpost

The recent interaction between student Michael Moreno and debate coach Ryan Wash caused significant controversy online and on campus after Moreno posted recordings of in-class interactions on YouTube. Since then, WSU faculty and staff have refocused on what it means to provide an environment of academic freedom and free speech while at the same time ensuring that all people on campus feel physically and intellectually safe.

Adrienne Andrews, WSUs Vice President for Diversity and Chief Diversity Officer, hosted a forum discussion for faculty and staff on the morning of Nov. 20. Andrews invited several faculty and staff members to share their ideas and to review the universitys official policies regarding these matters.

The panelists in the discussion included Professor of Economics Dr. Doris Stevenson; Dean of the Library Wendy Holliday; Director of the Womens Center Paige Davies; Professor of Chemistry Dr. Tim Herzog; Professor of Teacher Education Dr. Forrest Crawford and Dane LeBlanc the former chief of WSUPD and the current Director of Safety.

Academic freedom is one of the pillars of the university, Herzog said. It allows us to do things that are controversial and challenging, things that may be upsetting to other people.

Herzog believes that there are challenges with how others may interpret or use academic freedom. He also believes that curriculum should fall within an agreed-upon set of rules. The university has curriculum review processes and committees to ensure and approve curriculum quality.

Faculty cannot just teach any controversial topic they want outside of their disciplinary area, Herzog said.

Dr. Stevenson added to Herzogs sentiment.

You have the freedom to teach anything that falls within the purview of the legitimate pedagogical reason, Stevenson said. How do we balance student rights and teacher rights? You have to fall back on policy.

According to Stevenson, current university policy gives students the right and responsibility to determine whether they should or can complete a course. If a student has a problem with a courses material, they may drop the course. If the course is a requirement for degree completion, the student may ask the course instructor for a reasonable accommodation. It is up to the faculty member to determine what the accommodation will be. The faculty member may deny the request unless the denial is arbitrary, capricious or illegal.

After the panel discussed academic freedom and students options in courses they may have issue with, Crawford addressed the issue of free speech.

The student comes (to class) with the view that they have a wide range of consideration that they can explore, Crawford said. To me, I do not assume that free speech is whenever, wherever, however. Free speech has a particular obligation, a particular guideline, a particular way.

Crawford believes, from a faculty standpoint, that teachers ultimately want students to respond to questions, but in a responsible way. Teachers should provide a structured way for students to share a diversity of opinion.

Andrews concurred with Crawfords idea by suggesting that faculty, with their students consent, should establish rules of debate on the first day of class each semester. Andrews believes students can express dissent more constructively if they establish rules with their peers for expressing opinion.

Holliday continued the discussion on free speech by arguing that spaces for free speech must also be spaces of productive learning. She believes the university must ultimately fulfill its role, not as a public forum, but as a learning space. Holliday will not censor what students and faculty choose to read, but she hopes students and faculty will choose to address inequities.

The conversation then turned to LeBlanc to address issues of campus safety.

If someone wants to protest, we take an unbiased approach, LeBlanc said. Our job is to facilitate safe, free expression.

LeBlanc acknowledges that this sometimes means having to physically separate protestors from counter-protestors.

Davies reviewed and reinforced university policy that is meant to prevent any type of discriminatory harassment.

If a university employee or student is experiencing any type of harassment or feels physical danger, they can seek remedies through the Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity (AAEO) Office, Davies said. There are formal and informal measures to help students, faculty and staff.

An audience member asked about what students can do if they feel disrespected by a professor, but not harassed or unsafe.

In this case, students should report how they feel to the department chair, Herzog said. The department chair or dean can explore that. If the need arises, students can also file complaints with the AAEO Office or the Provosts Office.

See the original post here:

Balancing free speech and safety on campus - The Signpost

Opinion: The clear line between hate speech and free speech – DW (English)

Earlier in June, local politician Walter Lbcke of Kassel was assassinated by a neo-Nazi extremist. Once again, Germany began debating the interrelation of right-wing vitriol and violence.

Lawmakers on all levels the local, state and federal have received threats. It is not uncommon for mayors of small municipalities to be among those threatened.So when individuals or a vocal minority create a climate of fear, fewer and fewer people are willing to take on such roles and serve their communities.

Intimidation damages our democratic culture

This can have fatal consequences for our democratic culture. Who, apart from those who are deeply ideological, will volunteer to take on a political mandate if the price is to live in fear or reap contempt? The state must be better at protecting all those who are threatened and subjected to violence And society regardless of party affiliations must openly support individuals who volunteer to serve their communities.

Guest columnist Matthias Quent

But this hatred did not come out of nowhere. For years, German lawmakers have turned a blind eye to this vile undercurrent, letting it fester. The state did nothing when German neo-Nazis gunned down migrants, homeless people and left-wing sympathizers. Few, if any, condemned the murder of punks, foreigners and gay people by the extreme right most likely because they felt no connection to them. Since 1990, 198 people were killed by right-wing extremists in Germany, according to the Amadeu Antonio Foundation. The number of sitting politicians? One.

It seems that only now, after the death of lawmaker Walter Lbcke, Germany's government and police have woken up to the lethal danger posed by German neo-Nazis. Germany's federal states, or Lnder, must strengthen the police and judiciary to this end so that they can more effectively prosecute radicals and protect those who are subjected to hatred and violence.

The funeral service for Walter Lbcke, head of the Kassel regional government, on 13 June.

Internet promoteshate speech

The internet allows people to hurl abuse and insults at others and even send death threats. This new reality shines a light on human depravity. Online, those spreading vitriolsdo not even have to look their victims in the eye.

Hateful statements, from a legal perspective, can be classified as opinions. Freedom of speech is an important principle, yet also one with ambivalent consequences: it permits anyone to make derogatory and aggressive statements as long as they do not violent German lawl. But italso enables anyone to take a courageous stand against such views and counter anti-Semitism, racism, sexism and other such ideologies of inequality.

Right now, there is a heated debate within Germany on whether countering discriminating and disparaging comments which until recently went largely unchallenged until society became more aware of this constitutes a breach of freedom of speech. After all, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)is systematically violating people's human dignity and we must persistently confront the party about this. The party breaches the basic principles of our constitution and whinges that its freedom of speech is being curtailed when it gets challenged on this. The AfD, after all, is more than happy to cast itself as an unfairly treated victim.

Freedom of speech is thriving

In reality, freedom of speech is thriving in Germany. The voices of those who were previously ignored, overlooked or suppressed are now being heard. Journalist Christian Bangel's hashtag #Baseballschlgerjahre (German for #baseballbatyears), for instance, has provided a platform for all those who have been attacked by far-right radicals across Germany.

Read more:Germany's Angela Merkel vows to fight right-wing extremist terrorism

I am among this group of people. And Iknow all too well what it means to feel hated andexperience violence and fear.

Those who have emancipated themselves, who have been ostracized and discriminated against must speak up. They must dispel the ignorance and indifference that for decades has existed, and challenge the cultural dominance of those who, for decades, have kept the experiences of the suppressed out of the public sphere.

Now, finally, people in Germany are coming to realize that the far-right is attacking the very core of our democracy. Every hate-filled comment targeting refugees, women, Jewish people,and others is an attack on the liberal democratic order we inhabit.

That is why the majority of German society should show genuine solitary and respect for the "other."For we have learned from German history that there may be a time when there is no-one who could intervene if this hatred continued to fester and grow.

Dr. Matthias Quent is a sociologist and the director of the Institute for Democracy and Civil Society (IDZ) in Jena, Thuringia. He authored the German book"Far-right Germany. How the radical right is vying for power and how we can stop them."

Originally posted here:

Opinion: The clear line between hate speech and free speech - DW (English)

Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump’s Tweets Witness Tampering? – Forbes

President Trumps use of Twitter to shape the narrative is notorious. True to form, he was tweeting fast and furious during the impeachment hearings. Negative testimony about the presidents interactions with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly incited his aggressive retorts, prompting speculation about whether his outbursts may be viewed as witness intimidation. Citing the First Amendment, Trump claims he is free to say what he pleases, including name-calling and denigrating witnesses. But is it criminal witness intimidation?

A number of recent cases have examined the use of social media platforms to conduct witness intimidation. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the witness tampering conviction of a woman who posted on Facebook the name of a potential witness in her brothers criminal trial who she warned not to get upon the stand, posting watch out little snitch. The Supreme Court too has had occasion to consider the criminality of Facebook posts suggesting that the defendants soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Even beyond our prolific president, the issue of improper use of digital media to harass or intimidate has seeped into the political realm. Earlier this year, House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was censured for tweets made on the eve of congressional testimony from former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, suggesting that unfavorable information about Cohen would be released if he testified.

Recent impeachment-related tweets from Trump are not the first public statements from the president to be called into question. Critics previously argued that the president was obstructing justice by dangling a pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, during the Mueller investigation. Tweets expressing sympathy for Manafort and referring to him as a brave man in contrast to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who cooperated with authorities and was referred to by Trump as a coward were viewed as a subtle message to Manafort to stay strong and possibly reap the benefits ala a presidential pardon.

Trumps tweets about the Whistleblower who filed the complaint that has instigated the impeachment hearings also have been questioned. A September 26, 2019 tweet likened the Whistleblower to a spy and further stated You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now. This tweet prompted the Whistleblowers attorneys to send a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence expressing concern for their clients anonymity and safety.

Most recently, a tweet from President Trump blasting Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, as she testified has been called witness intimidation. After hearing Trumps statement that everywhere she went turned bad, Yovanovitch herself stated that it was intimidating. Democrats opined that the Presidents tactics would, and were intended to, scare off other potential witnesses.

The Law of Witness Intimidation

Knowingly using intimidation or threats to influence testimony in an official proceeding, such as a proceeding before Congress, is a crime under Section 1512 of the United States Code. Whether a presidential tweet storm might be considered a violation of this statute centers on a few questions: 1) when can a tweet or public statement implicate Section 1512; 2) when are tweets or statements considered a threat under federal law; and 3) what is the requisite criminal intent?

Section 1512 has been applied to social media posts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction under Section 1512 of Delexsia Harris, who took to Facebook two weeks before her brothers trial for murder. Harris posted threatening statements and depictions of guns and bombs pointing at police cars alongside broad references to individuals identified as potential witnesses in the case. (886 F3d 1120) Harris also named one witness directly. Stating that the question of whether a communication is a threat is a factual question to be resolved by a jury, the Court upheld the jurys determination that a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret [Harriss posts] as a threat.

In Trumps case, Democrats argue that his tweet made during Ambassador Yovanovitchs testimony could have had an effect both on Yovanovitch, who was still in the process of providing information to Congress, as well as on other potential witnesses. The Second Circuit has held that the language of Section 1512 does not require the intimidating statement or threat be directly made to the threatened individual. (US v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015)). The statute states that a violation occurs when the defendant engages in wrongful conduct toward another person with the intent to influence any person in an official proceeding. Accordingly, a threat to X which causes Y to withhold information, qualifies as witness intimidation so long as the person making the threat had corrupt intent.

Section 1512 requires proof of specific corrupt intent to intimidate or persuade a witness either not to testify or to alter his or her testimony. Reasonable minds differ on Trumps motivation. The witness intimidation claims made against Representative Gaetz earlier this year suggest that even where the motivation to intimidate or persuade arguably is clearer, it may not rise to the level of criminality.

The night before Trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Gaetz, a staunch defender of Trump, tweeted Hey @MichaelCohen212- Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if shell remain faithful to you when youre in prison. Shes about to learn a lot . Gaetz defended claims that he was threatening Cohen by stating that he was only challenging the veracity and character of a witness. No criminal charges were brought against Gaetz and an investigation into his behavior by the Florida Bar resulted only in a written censure. In this highly-charged political environment, evidence of criminal intent may be difficult to prove.

Interaction with the First Amendment

The First Amendment may add another layer of protection to unbridled tweeters. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider what distinguishes a true threat from speech protected by the First Amendment in Elonis v. United States in 2014. The Court reviewed Eloniss conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Specifically, Elonis made a series of posts on Facebook suggesting that his soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Other posts contained threats against police, the FBI and a kindergarten class. On appeal, Eloniss lawyer argued the conviction should be overturned because Elonis lacked the requisite specific intent to injure, was just venting about his personal problems, and did not mean to threaten anyone.

The question as phrased by the Supreme Court was whether the statute required that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication and, if not, whether the First Amendment required such a showing. Unfortunately, the Courts opinion did not resolve the question directly, but took issue with the Third Circuits application of a reasonable person standard a civil tort concept to determine the defendants criminal intent, stating that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. The conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Third Circuit. Thereafter, the Third Circuit found the error to be harmless and affirmed the conviction because Elonis testified at trial that he knew his posts would be viewed as threats, thereby satisfying the knowledge element of the crime.

Conclusion

Courts and attorneys are going to have to contemplate how the use of Twitter and other social medium platforms increasingly used as a forum for political and commercial speech must be analyzed under criminal statutes. Like any other form of communication, courts correctly have determined that these types of public statements may be viewed as threats subject to criminal charges. Whether the conduct is criminal will depend upon first, whether a reasonable person familiar with the context within which the statement was made would view it as a threat, and second, whether the speaker intended to intimidate. Certainly, the words and the speakers power and ability to make good on the threat will play a part in that analysis.

To read more fromRobert J. Anello, please visitwww.maglaw.com.

The rest is here:

Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump's Tweets Witness Tampering? - Forbes

Is free speech on campus really free? – The Catholic Register

Forgive Blaise Alleyne if he doesnt quite agree with the provincial government that Ontario universities and colleges are paragons of free speech. The pro-life advocate has the scars to prove they arent all that tolerant to some speech.

I was assaulted, and my colleague was assaulted with a weapon, said Alleyne of a pro-life outreach he was conducting at Torontos Ryerson University.

Its been a regular occurrence over the 15 years Alleyne has advocated for the rights of the unborn on Toronto campuses, he says. Hes had coffee spit on him and his displays have been blockaded or ransacked. The most recent disruption came in early October at the University of Toronto Mississauga campus.

When I called for assistance from UTM campus police, the first thing that happened is that I got a talking to about the pro-life display, said Alleyne, the founder of Toronto Against Abortion who is an educational co-ordinator with pro-life groups on campuses across Toronto.

Alleyne is still waiting to hear back from U of T after filing a complaint.

On Nov. 4 the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) released its first college and university free speech report and said all Ontario institutes are in compliance with a free speech policy the Conservative government demanded shortly after taking power in June 2018.

Our government worked quickly to protect free speech on campus, and colleges and universities have done a great job of putting consistent, effective policies in place, said Ross Romano, Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In August 2018, schools were mandated to develop, implement and comply with policies that protect free speech while keeping campuses free of hate speech, discrimination and other illegal forms of speech.

Bringing universities and colleges in line with free speech policies was a key plank in the Conservative platform after a growing outcry over speech issues on campus. For years, pro-life groups and others with conservative leanings faced harassment and had events shut down by protesters. It seemed to come to a head in 2017 when Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd found herself at odds with her supervisor for showing a clip of Jordan Peterson the U of T professor who fought using gender pronouns when addressing students in her communications class. It made national headlines and stirred controversy over academic freedom issues.

Shepherd, now a Campus Free Speech Fellow with the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, read the report that said only one out of 40,000 events was shut down for security issues (a Canadian Nationalist Party event at U of T in January). That would seem to indicate schools are taking free speech seriously. But Shepherd said that of these 40,000 events, its minuscule how many would be put on by free speech-minded students.

Thinking about all Conservatives/free speech advocates/Christians across all universities in Ontario who actually have clubs and host events, how many events would that cumulatively be? asked Shepherd in an e-mail interview with The Register. Maybe 20-100? So the few events that free speech advocates/conservatives/right-wingers do host are really the only events at risk of being protested in the first place.

This, she said, is the success the government speaks of when it lauds compliance on campus.

Shepherd said students have been internalized, since elementary school, that they should not question the gender/race/sexuality/gender identity orthodoxy du jour lest they be labelled hateful racist homophobes, so the number of students who would host certain events is already incredibly small.

Alleyne doesnt see university administrations as the main culprit. That belongs to the student unions.

If you look at student unions, thats where you see major problems with free speech, said Alleyne.

That was supposed to be taken care of with the governments call for compliance. Its been a glaring omission in the just-released report, he said.

There are no pro-life clubs with official status granted by student unions on any of the five university campuses in Toronto, notes Alleyne, though theyve found a way around that at U of T and York University, where such clubs are recognized by the administration.

There is currently a complaint against Ryerson before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario concerning discrimination and harassment pro-life groups face. Alleyne said its at the point that pro-lifers have not tried to host an event on campus since April 2017.

This chill is palpable on campus, said Shepherd, and the lack of events cancelled should not be the barometer for free speech on campus. Certain groups are discouraged from hosting events because of the threat of cancellation and being hit with exorbitant security fees in the face of protest, she said.

Still, with the province setting some standards, it is a positive step forward, said Alleyne, and the governments policy is a work in progress.

Follow this link:

Is free speech on campus really free? - The Catholic Register

Michael Roth Speaking on Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness – Zip06.com

Michael Roth will discuss his new book, Safe Enough Spaces: A Pragmatists Approach to Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness on College Campuses at a Books & Bagels event at Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek, 55 East Kings Highway, Chester on Sunday, Dec. 8 at 10:30 a.m. The event is free and open to all.

Roth, president of Wesleyan University, takes a pragmatists path through the thicket of serious issues todays colleges and universities face. He envisions college as a space in which all students are empowered to engage deeply with a variety of ideas, including those that are disturbing. In such a spacesafe from debilitating harm but not from the discomfort of intense debate and substantial disagreementstudents can develop a sense of who they are, what matters to them, and what they hope to make of their lives, he says.

He suggests it is difficult and altogether possible to create a space that is safe enough for diverse and unpopular perspectives and where no idea is protected from reasoned challenge. Considering cases from around the country and drawing on decades of firsthand experience as a college administrator and professor, Roth offers realistic and concrete solutions to provide a rigorous, bracing, and genuine education to all college students.

Light refreshments will be provided. Copies of the book will be available for sale and for autographing after Roths talk. More information is available at http://www.cbsrz.org or by calling 860-526-8920.

The rest is here:

Michael Roth Speaking on Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness - Zip06.com

Universities Enabling the Hijacking of Free Speech When Jews are Involved – The Times of Israel

In a country where multiculturalism has a reverent following and criticism of protected minorities has essentially been criminalized as hate speech, it is more than ironic that on some Canadian campuses radical students have taken it upon themselves to target one group, Jewish students, with a hatred that is nominally forbidden for any others. And with a recent incident that took place on November 20th, York University, in particular, has now revealed a troubling pattern of tolerating physical and emotional assaults by pro-Palestinian radicals against Jewish students and others who dare to demonstrate any support for Israel or question the tactics of Islamists in their efforts to destroy the Jewish state.

Herut Canada, a Zionist movement dedicated to social justice, the unity of the Jewish people, and the territorial integrity of the Land of Israel, was sponsoring an on-campus event featuring Reservists on Duty, former IDF soldiers who would be discussing BDS and the particular challenges facing the IDF in its interaction with terrorism. But Yorks perennially-radical group, Students Against Israeli Apartheid at York University (SAIA York), was having no part of the visit and, joined by off-campus members of the equally radical Antifa organization, disrupted the event with some 600 activists heckling, chanting through bull horns, and even physical assaulting other studentsall aimed at shutting down the event and preventing attendees from hearing what the guests from the IDF had to say about negotiating for peace.

What was particularly revealing, and chilling, about the hate-filled protest (or riot, more accurately) was the virulence of the chants and messages on the placards, much of it seeming to suggest that more sinister hatreds and feelingsover and above concern for Israeli military operationswere simmering slightly below the surface. Many of the furious protestors, for instance, shrieked out, Viva, Viva Intifada and Long live the Intifada, a grotesque and murderous reference to the Second Intifada, during which Arab terrorists murdered some 1000 Israelis and wounded more than 14,000 others.

That pro-Palestinian student activists, those who purport to be motivated by a desire to bring justice to the Middle East, could publicly call for the renewed slaughter of Jews in the name of Palestinian self-determination demonstrates quite clearly how ideologically debased the human rights movement has become. Activists on and off U.S. campuses, who never have to face a physical threat more serious than getting jostled while waiting in line for a latte at Starbucks, are quick to denounce Israels very real existential threats and the necessity of the Jewish state to take countermeasures to thwart terrorism. And quick to label the killing of Hamas terrorists by the IDF as genocide, these well-meaning but morally-blind individuals see no contradiction in their calls for the renewed murder of Jews for their own sanctimonious cause, not to mention the irony of the protestors decrying the very presence and alleged barbarity of the IDF at York while simultaneously calling for the continued murder of Jews in the name of Palestinian self-determination.

Other protestors were less overt in their angry chants, carrying signs and shouting out the oft-heard slogan, Free, Free Palestine, or, as they eventually screamed out, Viva, viva Palestina! That phrase suggests the same situation that a rekindled Intifada would help bring about, namely that if the fictive nation of Palestine is liberated, is free, there will, of course, be no Israel between the Jordan River and Mediterraneanand no Jews.

Another deadly chorus emanated from protestors during the rally: Resistance is justified when people are occupied! That is an oft-repeated, but disingenuous and false notion that stateless terrorists have some recognized human right to murder civilians whose government has purportedly occupied their territory. It may be comforting for Israels ideological foes to rationalize the murder of Jews by claiming some international right to do it with impunity and a sense of righteousness. Unfortunately, however, as legal experts have inconveniently pointed out, the rally participants and their terror-appeasing apologists elsewhere are completely wrong about the legitimacy of murder as part of resistance to an occupying force.

Something is clearly amiss on North American campuses, and the York incident is emblematic of a much larger problem endemic to universities today, that anti-Israel activists have hijacked the dialogue of the Israeli/Palestinian conversation and have decided that they, and they alone, should and will decide whose views will be heard and whose will not, something that supporters of Israel have been experiencing for more than a decade already. Anti-Israel campus activists have conducted an ongoing campaign to delegitimize and libel Israel, and their tactics include a concerted attempt to shut down dialogue and debateanything that will help to normalize Zionism, permit pro-Israel views to be aired, or generate support for the Jewish state.

The tendentious, virtue-signaling brownshirts at York who attempted to suppress the speech of pro-Israel speakers whose views they had predetermined could not even be uttered on campus share a common set of characteristics with groups like the radical Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) who have led the assault against Israel and Jewish students who support it: it is they, and they alone, who know what it acceptable speech, what ideas are appropriate and allowed, which groups are victims of oppression and should, therefore, receive special accommodation for their behavior and speech, which views are progressive (and therefore virtuous) and which views are regressive (and therefore hateful), which cause is worthy of support and which is, because of its perceived moral defects, worthy of opprobrium.

Leading up to the York event, protestors had put up posters that read, All Out. No Israeli Soldiers on Our Campus. To help further reinforce the malignancy of the IDF, the posters included a photograph of a grotesque Jewish soldier brandishing an automatic weapon over a cowering Arab child. As other anti-Israel groups have expressed with chants and posters calling for Zionists Off Our Campus and similar messages targeting Jews and other supporters of Israel, the York posters reveal a very dangerous trend on campuses in which self-righteous, morally-preening brats take it upon themselves to speak for entire universities in deciding which views will be tolerated and which must be suppressed. That York administrators, and officials at many other universities as well, regularly allow this represents a failure by academia to live up to its oft-professed goal of encouraging free and open expression and debate.

York administrators may be cautious about curbing the speech of SAIA York, particularly because its members are perceived to be a protected minority group, but the issue here is not about speech but about behavior. In fact, Yorks own student code of conduct specifically prohibits threats of harm, or actual harm, to a persons physical or mental wellbeing, including verbal and non-verbal aggression verbal abuse; intimidation; [and] harassment all of which were clearly violated by the demonstrators physically intimidating protests. Yorks Community Standards for Student Conduct specifically prohibits: disruption of, or interference with, University activities, such as: causing a substantial disorder . . ; creating dangerous situations (intentional or not); making or causing excessive noise; disrupting classes, events or examinations . . ; [and] blocking exit routesall of which regulations were violated by the rioters at the November 20th event.

More importantly, the notion that a vocal minority of self-important ideologues can determine what views may or may not be expressed on a particular campus is not only antithetical to the purpose of a university, but is vaguely fascistic by relinquishing power to a few to decide what can be said and what speech is allowed and what must be suppressed; it is what former Yale University president Bartlett Giamatti characterized as the tyranny of group self-righteousness.

The sententious activists fueling this ideological bullying may well feel that they have access to all the truth and facts, but even if this were truewhich it demonstrably and regularly is notit certainly does not empower them with the right to have the only voice and to disrupt, shout down, or totally eliminate competing opinions in political or academic debates. No one individual or group has the moral authority or intellectual might to decide what may and may not be discussed, and especially young, sanctimonious studentswhose expertise and knowledge about the Middle East, in particular, is frequently characterized by distortions, lies, lack of context, corrosive bias against Israel, and errors in history and fact.

University officials regularly proclaim that they have a commitment to the principles of freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech and freedom of association. But that empty exhortation has shown itself, repeatedly, to be, at best, disingenuous, and, at worst, a masking of the true intention of campus radicals: enabling favored victim groups to utter vitriol and libel against Israel and Jews, with the pretense that they have somehow encouraged intellectual debate and productive political discussion. This is not rigorous debate and dialogue at all; it is Jew-hatred dressed up in academic clothes.

There is no other explanation for why educated, well-intentioned and humane individuals, experiencing paroxysms of moral self-righteousness in which they are compelled to speak out for the perennial victim, can loudly and publicly advocate for the murder of Jewswho already have created and live in a viable sovereign stateon behalf of a group of genocidal enemies of Israel whose tragic condition may well be their own doing, and, at any rate, is the not the sole fault of Israels. That these activists are willing, and ready, to sacrifice the Jewish state, and Jewish lives, in the name of social justice and a specious campaign of self-determination by Palestinian Arabs, shows how morally corrupt and deadly the conversation about human rights has become.

And its lethal nature and intent should frighten us all.

Go here to see the original:

Universities Enabling the Hijacking of Free Speech When Jews are Involved - The Times of Israel

Wisconsin’s Democratic governor signs oil lobby-backed bill criminalising free speech – World Socialist Web Site

Wisconsins Democratic governor signs oil lobby-backed bill criminalising free speech By Jacob Crosse 26 November 2019

Wisconsins Democratic governor Tony Evers, ignoring opposition from environmental groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple Tribal Nations, last week signed into law Assembly Bill 426. The legislation makes it a felony, punishable with a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison, to protest, trespass or cause damage to critical infrastructure, including transmission lines, fencing, posts and oil pipelines.

In a Wednesday press conference after signing the bill, Evers, who ran in 2018 on a platform of pragmatism and change, admitted that he had problems with the bill, but they were not enough to stop him from signing the bipartisan bill which passed with overwhelming Republican support.

While he easily signed off on the pro-corporate bill, Evers has not announced any plans to push for legislation reversing the corporate handouts to Foxconn or the anti-worker Act 10 measures enacted by his predecessor Scott Walker in the face of mass protests in 2011.

Democrats throughout the state, including State Senator Janet Bewely, tried to hide behind workers as justification for signing the bill. While she didnt care to elaborate on workers safety in regard to the damage created by climate change, or the evisceration of safety regulations under Democratic and Republican administrations, Bewley instead focused on workers on pipelines [who] feel more and more unsafe due to an increase in reported incidents of vandalism that jeopardize not only their safety, but the publics safety as well.

Assembly Bill 426 is based on the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act model bill which was distributed to state legislators by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a conservative nonprofit that derives over 98 percent of its funding from corporate goliaths such as AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, Pfizer and Wal-Mart. Model legislation crafted by these corporations attorneys and lobbyists is distributed via ALEC to members of both parties for passage in legislatures across the country.

In audio obtained by The Intercept earlier this year, lobbyist Derrick Morgan, a senior vice president for federal and regulatory affairs for the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) association, a powerful lobby group, elaborated the purpose of these bills and how he wasintimately involved in crafting the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act.

Speaking at a June conference in Washington, D.C. for the Energy & Mineral Law Foundation, Morgan explained that this model legislation would itemize criminal trespass and also a liability for folks that cause damage during protest.

While it is already a federal crime for individuals to destroy or impede the transportation of energy, this new legislations true purpose is to hold liable any political groups that work to organize protests or direct action against the corporations that are destroying the planet. Morgan noted, [A]nother key aspect of it, which you also include, is inspiring organizationsso organizations who have ill intent, want to encourage folks to damage property and endanger livesthey are also held liable.

By signing the legislation Evers made Wisconsin the tenth state to adopt legislation written by the oil companies which further enhances the power of the state in penalizing protesters. In fact, the Wisconsin law has the exact same language as critical infrastructure bills that have passed with bipartisan support in North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Iowa, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas and Missouri.

The impetus for the passage of this and similar pieces of legislation was the 2016-2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protest, which took place on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota against Energy Transfer Partners plan to construct an oil pipeline under the Missouri River.

The Standing Rock protests won broad support from workers and students as over 10,000 protesters stood firm against the combined might of the capitalist state and multinational oil conglomerates. Live video feeds from the protesters broadcasted the brutality of private military contractors hired by the oil companies as they worked in conjunction with state troopers to violently suppress and beat workers, students and the indigenous population.

In addition to police from across the Midwest, federal agencies including the FBI were mobilized against the peaceful protesters. Together these various private and public agencies developed intelligence reports gathered through drone surveillance and infiltration of the protest movement. These dubious reports, gathered from social media feeds, innuendo and hearsay, were shared across police networks, which prompted violence against protesters including the firing of rubber bullets, water cannon and flash-bang grenades.

The protest movement was eventually dispersed following months of police violence, frigid temperatures and the lack of independent political leadership within the movement. The Obama administration worked closely with the leadership of the Standing Rock tribe, which is aligned with the Democratic Party, to shut down the protests and encourage everyone to go home.

Following the Obama administrations intervention and the betrayal of the movement by its leaders, an evacuation order was given by North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum for the camp to disperse. Following months of protests, riot police violently dispersed the remaining demonstrators in February 2017.

The sight of thousands of workers, students and indigenous peoples united together against the class enemy has led to the concerted effort to pass the latest raft of anti-democratic laws. The intended purpose is not to protect the lives of oil and gas workers but to further criminalize and enhance the punitive measures against any group or person who resists the further degradation and destruction of the planet in the name of private profits.

Once again, the Democrats have shown that they have no fundamental differences with their partners in the Republican Party. Both serve the interests of private profit above all else. The fight against multinational oil corporations requires an international, anti-capitalist socialist strategy uniting workers across national lines against the corporations responsible for the continued destruction of the planet.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See more here:

Wisconsin's Democratic governor signs oil lobby-backed bill criminalising free speech - World Socialist Web Site